God creating things, part whatever:

[Vlad!]

Some of you may remember an older post of mine on this board about whether physics (and the physical laws that govern the universe) were created or pre-existant. I think the consensus was yes, they are created.

So what about concepts, such as numbers? Surely you can't argue that number theory didn't exist before creation.

[Skrappybiskit]

By that you're assuming that logic, and the outworkings of it, are attributes of God's character, showing themselves in creation. But what if, as some philosophers have argued, logic is merely a creation of an incomprehensible God in order to give continuity and comprensibility?

Of course, this raises its own plethora of questions. But either way, logic etc leads to God, whether he created it to lead to him, or whether it leads to him by virtue of his character.

So could God create a univers where 2 + 2 = 3? You wouldn't think so, but then again, if this is a closed system of created number theory and its outworkings, you'd never be able to comprehend otherwise, whether the other possibilities were actually cogent or not in the mind of God.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

We say that there is one God with three parts, and that God has existed for all eternity. Thus, there has always been one tripartite God, so the concept of one has existed through all eternity. You can use the argument that it just SEEMS that way because we can't conceive anything different, but that's worse than useless and gets us nowhere.

[Skrappybiskit]

This is true, and you could extrapolate number theory based on the extant one, but it would hardly be convincing when you mentioned at the same time that the number 1 and the number 3 relate differently to God than they do to us; and in the end you still have number theory as it related to human logic.

Btw, I don't neccesarily take this view myself, I've just heard it the passing time, and it seems an interesting concept.

Skraps

[smartash]

this thread reminds me of a conversation my friend and i had. my friend is a huge TOOL fan, and one of the things the lead singer, maynard, is really interested in is called sacred geometry. my friend, not a christian, was telling me about it, how everything, EVERYTHING comes down to mathamatical logic and order. to him this was this huge realization, but to me it made perfect sense. I believe strongly is the concept of Design; i just happen to call it God. this is why math makes sense, because it IS sense.

hmm, i dont know if i explained that well, but hopefully y'all got something out of it.

in other words, Truth is Truth, whatever name you put on it. i think as christians we have alcoser idea of what Truth is in our emotional connection to It (God).

[oneafroboy]

The definition of a theory is an attempt to explain observable data. So, perhaps numbers as we know didn't exist, but the things for which numbers represent did.  Remember that numbers are just symbols. So, two plus two could equal five if, two= ** and five=****, and assuming that "plus" is the combination of two groups of "things".

I really don't know where this is all going, but I agree with the aforementioned ideas and thoughts. Truth is truth. God is logical, because He is God, and so His creation is thus orderly. This does not always mean we can perceive the specific workings of creation, but we can see that the universe works, and is therefore orderly. Even if we don't understand things like relativity, uncertainty principles (remember when Einstein said he couldn't belive God played dice with the universe?), and the like.

That reminds me of something else that has danced upon my mind before. Often in quantum physics, you will hear the so-called random order of particles, such as atoms, quarks, etc. From what I can gather, though, they only seem random, because we can't find a pattern in the midst of what appears to be chaos. So, why then is it assumed to be random or otherwise? (If that didn't make sense, that's okay.)

::Wonders if his post was completely worthless::    

[Vlad!]

I've had some difficulties in my Religious Ethics class convincing people that truth is truth.

Afro: We're talking concepts, not symbols. I don't care if you say dos or zwei or two or ** or deux or whatever...it's what it represents that I'm referring to.

This is true, and you could extrapolate number theory based on the extant one, but it would hardly be convincing when you mentioned at the same time that the number 1 and the number 3 relate differently to God than they do to us; and in the end you still have number theory as it related to human logic.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm not saying one and three relate differently to God than man.  

[Skrappybiskit]

To me, "3" contains the number "1" three times. "1", however, cannot contain "3" because it is a factor of "1". The concept of the trinity is mysterious because it seems to violate what looks like an involiable rule, "1" containing "3" at the same time as "3" contains "1" three times. I'm not sure if I'm actually making sense here, though

Skraps

[Vlad!]

I see what you're saying, and I'm not sure it's fully comprehensible to us mere mortals, but there were pre-existing concepts of 1 and 3, regardless of how they interrelate

[Skrappybiskit]

But if they inter-relate differently for God than for us, that effects everything, including logic, number theory, physics, and all the rest.

Or this 3/1 phenomenon could be isolated to the particular trinitarian instance.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

They interrelate the same. Three members, one Godhead. That's like saying 100 members, one senate is a 'special' way for the numbers 1 and 100 to interrelate...it simply exposes ignorance of how numbers work.

[Skrappybiskit]

They interrelate the same. Three members, one Godhead. That's like saying 100 members, one senate is a 'special' way for the numbers 1 and 100 to interrelate...it simply exposes ignorance of how numbers work.

But this seems to me a fundimental misrepresention of what the Trinity actually is. If it were just 3 beings relating to a container grouping the way that the members of senate relate to the actual idea of a senate, where would the mystery lie? The fact that number theory can't explain the superimposition of Godhead and personhood would lead one to believe that number theory is inadequite at best to describe the trinity, and if so, one can't extrapolate number theory from the pre-existing concepts of 1 and 3.

But again, this isn't *my* argument, so I can't really go anywhere with it.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

I'm a bit shaky on the Trinity, but I haven't read anything in the Bible that suggests the Trinity is anything but three distinct beings who share one will. So sure, the Senate example sucked (far be it from me to deify the US Senate), but it was just an example.

 

[leinad]

I've heard the Trinity explained as being like three dimensions of God.  Some creeds state that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Holy Ghost is eternally proceeding from both the Father and the Son.  It seems to be a matter of dispute whether Jesus was always the Son, or whether the title "Son" was only in relationship to the virgin birth, and I'm not really sure on that.

There are also those who say that God is one person in three manifestations (the Oneness Pentecostals, for example), which makes more sense from a logical standpoint, but has its problems in scripture (example: did Jesus pray to himself?)  I actually used to think that's what the Trinity meant, that the Son was the Father and both were the Holy Spirit, and needless to say, I was quite confused as to how a Father could be His own son.

Then there are those who say that Jesus isn't really God, and only the Father is, but they have to play semantics with verses which state that He is God, such as John 1:1, John 20:28, Isaiah 9:6, Hebrews 1:8, etc.

[oneafroboy]

Yeah, understading the Trinity is tricky.

It is certainly evident in Genesis that God exists as more than one person. Gen 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." Notice the plural first person used in this.

Originally I had something else typed next, but I just discovered something in my Bible. I was going to bring up the fact that in Matthew 24: 36 it reads, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." I was going to say that this shows that there are things the Father knows that the Son doesn't. Then, there's a little super-script e after "nor the Son", and at the bottom of the page it reads, "Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son." What's one to believe? So whatever point I was going to make, I don't think I feel comfortable making it in light of this discovery.

The Trinity confuses me. I think it's more than just a manifestation (for there was at least two of Them at the creation of the world). I'd like to think it's more than just three beings with one will, but I don't know. I would suggest Mere Christianity which contains Lewis' view on the Trinity. I don't know if he is right, but what he says makes sense (or at least it did at the time I was reading the book).

But part of God is a mystery and remains unrevealed to us. I think that's one of the cool things about God and about our faith--there's an element of mystery to it. And I think that element of mystery is important.

[Skrappybiskit]

I'm a bit shaky on the Trinity, but I haven't read anything in the Bible that suggests the Trinity is anything but three distinct beings who share one will. So sure, the Senate example sucked (far be it from me to deify the US Senate), but it was just an example.

Ah I see then where we're out of sync. My example probably doesn't make much sense

Skraps

ps: I find it interesting that the development, philosophically, of the Trinity as three co-equal persons superimposed upon one indivisible Godhead predates but also resolves at least part of the classical "the one and the many" debate.