2 Questions

[POI]

1. Why did God create anything at all?
2. What arena/space/other did God dwell within or upon before he first had to create it?

[POI]

I think Q2 comes from a particular reading of Genesis 1:1 .ie if God created "the heavens" and God lives in heaven, where was he before he created somewhere to live?

Do you agree with Otseng's position? Meaning, do you also feel God is not definable, as it relates to spatial relations? If not, please specify your believed position, and why you believe it?

[The Tanager]

POI,

Thank you for your questions and the manner in which you are asking them. I hope my thoughts are helpful and that you will continue to challenge/investigate them.

How do we know this passage of "humans are created in God's image" is intended to be a mere metaphor?

Is there a way to find out if God (does or does not) actually have definable spatial relation(s), like any other sentient being?

You would look at the reasoning offered by the various sides and see which one (if any) makes the better case. If neither case is better, you’d stay an agnostic. The vast majority of thinkers (Christian and non-Christian) believe it is clearly metaphorical, but we can try to look at the actual arguments, if you want.

If God thinks definable material space is good, then why isn't God definable, via spatial relations?

First, I think “part” of God is definable via spatial relations (namely, Jesus’ body). This wouldn’t mean that God occupies spatial relations alone, as Jesus is only one Person of the Three-Person God. I believe this is the correct view due to a long string of rational argumentation that includes various arguments for God’s existence and, ultimately, on the historicity of the Resurrection and the reliability of the writings later compiled into the Christian Bible which give us Jesus’ teachings.

Second, God believing that definable material space is good is not the same thing as saying all non-definable material space is not good.

Third, logically, nothing can be responsible for its initial nature, God included, if that is what you are trying to get at.

But to answer the question, I do think there are (or at least definitely could be) completely immaterial beings that aren't God.

Such as? And also, why do you think so?

As to the possibility of there being other immaterial beings, I see no logical contradiction in two immaterial beings existing. If there is no logical contradiction, then such a thing is possible. Do you have any logical contradiction to change that view that you could help me with?

As to the reality of there being other immaterial beings, that would also come from the historicity of the Resurrection and reliability of the earliest writings about Jesus.

[POI]

POI,

Thank you for your questions and the manner in which you are asking them. I hope my thoughts are helpful and that you will continue to challenge/investigate them.

You would look at the reasoning offered by the various sides and see which one (if any) makes the better case. If neither case is better, you’d stay an agnostic. The vast majority of thinkers (Christian and non-Christian) believe it is clearly metaphorical, but we can try to look at the actual arguments, if you want.

The way I see it, here lies the cruxe(s).

1) What it appears you are saying is when Genesis describes God creating humans in his 'likeness', it does not mean 'material/physical' traits, but instead his traits/emotions/etc, which are completely 'immaterial'?

2) What it appears you are saying here is that God is completely 'immaterial', like 'love'?

First, I think “part” of God is definable via spatial relations (namely, Jesus’ body). This wouldn’t mean that God occupies spatial relations alone, as Jesus is only one Person of the Three-Person God. I believe this is the correct view due to a long string of rational argumentation that includes various arguments for God’s existence and, ultimately, on the historicity of the Resurrection and the reliability of the writings later compiled into the Christian Bible which give us Jesus’ teachings.

Are you referring to the 'trinity' here? Meaning, 1) father, 2) son, 3) holy ghost/spirit? And 2) takes "material" form, or the part within the trinity in which we humans interact with, via the necessity for spatial relation(s)?

Second, God believing that definable material space is good is not the same thing as saying all non-definable material space is not good.

Is spatial relation(s) necessary to distinguish oneself from another, including distinguishing when you are directing your efforts towards God?

Third, logically, nothing can be responsible for its initial nature, God included, if that is what you are trying to get at.

What I'm "trying to get at", is to try and demonstrate that theists, namely Christians, may be guilty of special pleading. Through the decades, when listening to the rationale(s) of many theists/Christians, I hear statements and phrases along the lines of, 'you can't get something from nothing.' Language is nuanced. Words can have differing meanings in differing context(s). And sometimes, maybe there exists no right word(s) to truly describe something? However, the concept still remains...

At one point, there was only God, and absolutely nothing else at all? How exactly does that logically work? Kind of a rhetorical Q here, see below in red...

As to the possibility of there being other immaterial beings, I see no logical contradiction in two immaterial beings existing. If there is no logical contradiction, then such a thing is possible. Do you have any logical contradiction to change that view that you could help me with?

Let's approach this in a differing way... Can "immaterialism" exist without the necessity of "materialism"? Take what you stated prior:

"The concept of love is distinguishable from the concept of hate without being physical things."

Does 'love and hate' actually exist outside a material brain? If you think it does or can, how might you demonstrate/prove this?

I use the example above because you and I both agree that human brains exist, as well as we both agree to the actual concepts of 'love and hate', as we humans define them.

[William]

The mind is often thought to be immaterial yet exists within the physical realm, so evidently the immaterial does interact within physical reality.

Are you referring to "substance dualism"?

I am referring to the claim that a non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do

[POI]

The mind is often thought to be immaterial yet exists within the physical realm, so evidently the immaterial does interact within physical reality.

Are you referring to "substance dualism"?

I am referring to the claim that a non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do

Does this mean God cannot dwell within "materialistic" space?

[William]

The mind is often thought to be immaterial yet exists within the physical realm, so evidently the immaterial does interact within physical reality.

Are you referring to "substance dualism"?

I am referring to the claim that a non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do

Does this mean God cannot dwell within "materialistic" space?

The claim certainly appears to be meaning that, yes.

[POI]

The mind is often thought to be immaterial yet exists within the physical realm, so evidently the immaterial does interact within physical reality.

Are you referring to "substance dualism"?

I am referring to the claim that a non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do

Does this mean God cannot dwell within "materialistic" space?

The claim certainly appears to be meaning that, yes.

Can the some of the claim(s) for Christianity remain logical if the above is true? If so, how so?

[William]

1. Why did God create anything at all?

If the ability to do so exists, then "why" is answered in the ability to do so.

2. What arena/space/other did God dwell within or upon before he first had to create it?

There would be no "other" until the "other" was created and the need to create it became apparent.

[William]

The mind is often thought to be immaterial yet exists within the physical realm, so evidently the immaterial does interact within physical reality.

Are you referring to "substance dualism"?

I am referring to the claim that a non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do

Does this mean God cannot dwell within "materialistic" space?

The claim certainly appears to be meaning that, yes.

Can the some of the claim(s) for Christianity remain logical if the above is true? If so, how so?

Give some specific claim as example, and we should be able to answer that.

[POI]

Give some specific claim as example, and we should be able to answer that.

How might a God actually intervene/communicate/interact with humans without infringing upon, or 'dwelling' upon, or crossing over into, materialistic space(s)?