If God exists, where is he? (Page 7)

Something else I can't get my head around is this notion that God desired to be known. In my book having such a desire, indeed any desire at all, shows Him to be needy and thus imperfect.

And as we all know, an imperfect being cannot be God.

So scripture has invalidated the existence of God.

Going back a bit, Ghost, you neglected to say Guy Murchie was the son of very distinguished Christian parents who held him to high standards. He was brought up in a privileged environment, having attended a Christian Boys School. After graduating from Harvard, he spent some years as a world traveler.

He became a Baha’i at age 32; so which religion influenced his thinking the most? Which country and people caught his affection the most?

I’m not sure why you compared him to me. I came from a poor, dysfunctional and violent family with no religious background, local relatives or travel experience. The only thing he and I share in common is we joined the Baha’i Faith at the same age.

"In my book having such a desire, indeed any desire at all, shows Him to be needy and thus imperfect."

Seems to me it's quite the opposite - when you have it all, keeping it all to yourself is just plain greedy and antisocial. A beneficent and merciful being is generous and kind. The "desire" I was speaking of is altruistic.

God is *absolutely* perfect - we have no idea what that is like.

Zanjan, Gerald was wondering if Guy Murchie was from The Creation Institute but it turned out he adopted the same religion as you, hence my comparing him to your good self. Nothing more sinister than that behind my posting what I posted.

God is supposedly complete, if the theologians are to be believed, so no reason for Him to desire anything.

Actually, if God resides outside of time, He won't have any feelings, won't have any desires and won't do any creating. All He'll do is exist as a changeless entity in a changeless present.

"so no reason for Him to desire anything."

Scriptures say God desires for us the same things He's chosen for Himself.

Aren't we all a little like that? If we find something really good we want to share that information with everyone we know - we want them to have the best; thus, a more comfortable and happy life. Isn't this a sign of generosity and good Will?

The word "perfection" is a superlative - it must remain the same to be complete. Any wavering from that state implies it was never perfect. While God is absolutely perfect, the best man can hope for or see is a relative perfection.

You may be perfect just the way you are; you won't be if compared to others.

Whenever the one true God was compared to other gods, those gods failed miserably on all counts. Man was able to make this comparison using the Divine Light repeatedly mirrored by God's Revelators.

I don't think you'll find any scientific or religious support for the idea of a "changeless present".

Boethius immediately defines eternity as “a possession of life, a possession simultaneously entire and perfect, which has no end.” By contrast, whatever longevity a temporal thing may have, its possession of life is unstable, as it is continually passing from one changed moment to the next, no longer possessing the life it had yesterday and not yet possessing the life it will possess tomorrow. Even if the world had, as Plato thought, no beginning and no end, it would not possess all of its existence simultaneously. Indeed, according to Boethius it stretches itself out in successive moments of constant change precisely in an attempt to imitate the fullness of life which it cannot possess in a simple, changeless present.

Boethius explicitly touches on the importance of seeing God as qualitatively rather than quantitatively different from things: “God ought not to be seen as more ancient and glorious than created things by the measurement of time, but rather by the distinctive character of his own simple nature.” Any merely quantitative distinction would be unworthy of God, so Boethius proposes that we refer to that which has no beginning and end, but is drawn out through time (Plato’s concept of the world), as “perpetual,” while reserving for God alone the title “eternal.”

Though Boethius was not the first to advance such a view of God’s eternity (Augustine had already done so in his Confessions), his definition became the standard one in medieval theology (for example, he is cited throughout Aquinas’s discussion of eternity in the Summa). The idea that God’s existence, rather than being extended through time, is a single, all-encompassing present has profound theological and spiritual implications beyond the scope of this article. But at least, having conceived a sufficiently lofty definition of eternity, we can now come to a better understanding of God’s knowledge.

[ https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/never-failing-present-boethius-on-gods-eternity/ ]

Note the bit towards the end of the above post: "The idea that God’s existence, rather than being extended through time, is a single, all-encompassing present"

No past and no future, just an eternal now.

Sounds pretty static to me.

Thomas Aquinas' view of God, outlined in Summa Theologiae, ia, questions 2—11, is that God is wholly simple, perfect, good, limitless, omnipresent, changeless, and timeless. The crucial concept is that of divine simplicity. God is not composed of parts in any way. So, God's goodness is identical with God's power and identical with God's existence and identical "with whatever else is similarly said of him" (question 3, article 3). Properties that seem to us to be diverse are, in God, united in an indivisible way. God cannot even logically be broken into parts. So, God must be timeless since time has parts (before and after). God is, therefore, changeless since there can be no change without time.

[ https://ebrary.net/4732/religion/classical_view_god_spaceless_timeless ]

Again, God sounds a pretty static being to me.

And something that's static, changeless, or however else you put it, cannot "desire" because to do so entails an act in time.

Seems to me, Boethius was pointing out the obvious – that is, things that should have been easily understood via ancient scriptures. One shouldn't be given credit for that.

However, it was 6th century Europe, a time of dwindling faith and the debasement of society in the eastern hemisphere. Against that background, I suppose he would have appeared wise to the commoners.

As if those simple-minded people could formulate a worthy definition of reality!

Surely, to make a point, we shouldn't have to travel back in time to weigh in on underdeveloped perceptions which were once popular in a lopsided world.

I can't be broken into parts either; my body is a mere shell like so much skin to be exfoliated but my soul is enduring - nothing physical can affect its life.

Eternity doesn't mean perpetual, it means "enduring", lasting forever. It doesn't mean 'changeless".

Since my soul emanates from God, it will last as long as God does.

God, however, is changeless in His ways. For example, His Will for mankind two thousand years ago was slightly different than His Will for today. While God makes decisions, none of them are beyond the order of His ways. In this respect and in its spiritual nature, the Faith of God is changeless.

We should probably not get too hung up on words. They have their limitations.

Doesn't seem you hold dear old Boethius in high regard. Perhaps you're being a little harsh:

Anicus Manlius Severinus Boethius lived in the last quarter of the fifth century A.D., and the first quarter of the sixth. He was growing to manhood, when Theodoric, the famous Ostrogoth, crossed the Alps and made himself master of Italy. Boethius belonged to an ancient family, which boasted a connection with the legendary glories of the Republic, and was still among the foremost in wealth and dignity in the days of Rome's abasement. His parents dying early, he was brought up by Symmachus, whom the age agreed to regard as of almost saintly character, and afterwards became his son-in-law. His varied gifts, aided by an excellent education, won for him the reputation of the most accomplished man of his time. He was orator, poet, musician, philosopher. It is his peculiar distinction to have handed on to the Middle Ages the tradition of Greek philosophy by his Latin translations of the works of Aristotle. Called early to a public career, the highest honours of the State came to him unsought. He was sole Consul in 510 A.D., and was ultimately raised by Theodoric to the dignity of Magister Officiorum, or head of the whole civil administration.

[ https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm ]

But putting him aside, you can be broken into parts. Take a trip to the dentist and you and a painful tooth can part company. All it takes is a pair of pliers. More to the point, parts of you are scattered behind you in the past and more of you is yet to arrive from the future. Of course that's OK for you, but theologians have a difficult time accepting that God is similarly smeared across time. They get round this problem by insisting the Almighty is a being who wholly exists in the present and then have to explain how he can interact on the temporal plane. That's where it gets messy.

That's the problem with religion. The intellectual classes have made it so complicated that you need a PhD in bullshitting before you can grasp what's being debated.

I have nothing against Boethius; he just can't compete in the modern world. Then again, some of the names of "greats" in our time don't impress me much either.

I am not my body.

My body is a lumpy sack I have to maintain and ride like a horse until I'm released from this physical plane. I appreciate this equipment is amazingly engineered but it's only a temporary vehicle, which doesn't look like me.

God doesn't actually interact on the temporal plane. An interaction implies there's reciprocity that has a mutual affect on each other. The created can't affect the Creator. As I previously said, there is no tie that binds God to His creation.

However, men can incur God's pleasure or displeasure - that's not interaction. It's like if I told God a joke that made me laugh for 5 minutes, that doesn't mean God will also laugh for 5 minutes.

"That's the problem with religion. The intellectual classes have made it so complicated ....."

Well, maybe you're looking too closely at the intellectuals who celebrate themselves, eh.
I mean, look at ol' Thomas Aquinas. There he is, describing God.
It's so cute when they try, eh.

Maybe just look to the scriptures instead. They all say God is incomprehensible.

God doesn't talk about the essence of His Being - scriptures address His Sovereignty, His powers and attributes, those are signs of His presence that WE can comprehend and appreciate because they're revealed through us.

God doesn't interact with us poor dumb humans on the temporal plane you say. How can that be when Genesis has God walking in the Garden of Eden and calling for Adam?

Come on, God even ran up some togs for Adam and Eve. That's sure-fire interaction in my book.