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?

[William]

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

How might a God actually intervene with humans without infringing upon, or 'dwelling' upon, materialistic space(s)?

Exactly. The idea of infringement is connected to the idea of what a God cannot do.

When defined in such a manner, "the God which cannot do" cannot be used as the source for any claims of what the God has "done".

IF
a non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do
THEN....?

By examining the claim we can understand that a "physical being" (like we) can dwell within a physical space, and the God cannot...what is to be ascertained in that?

The claim appears to be connected to your 2nd question.


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

The question itself assumes there was a requirement on the Gods part making anything created by said God to be assumed necessary.

If we remove the assumption we can allow room for the possibility that there was no reason for the universe to have been created, which in turn allows for broader assumptions to be made, while also thickening the plot.

Within the general Christian folklore the requirement appears to be connected to an assumed debate between two such entities, one of which apparently is able to mingle with the universe...

[The Tanager]

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'?

Contextually, being made in God's image seems to at least be about us ruling over the earth in the same way God does.

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

I do think God was completely immaterial until the Incarnation, but not in the same way a concept like 'love' is. Love is a concept that describes the actions of another being, while God is a being.

Are you referring to the 'trinity' here? Meaning, 1) father, 2) son, 3) holy ghost/spirit?

Yes.

And 2) takes "material" form, or the part within the trinity in which we humans interact with, via the necessity for spatial relation(s)?

I don't think humans only interact with the divine person that took on human flesh, but that humans were able to interact with Jesus in spatial ways.

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

Spatial relations are only necessary when distinguishing one material being from another material being.

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...

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.

I'm a bit confused here since these seem to be two different issues, but I'm probably missing something. There is no logical problem with the existence of an immaterial being (whether God or not) and nothing else existing. I don't see why anyone would question how that logically works.

As to whether there is actual evidence of the immaterial, I'm not sure your question makes sense. And I'm not trying to be funny here; it's a serious question. Can 'love and hate' exist if all is matter? If you think it can, can you demonstrate this? If it can't, then the only way 'love and hate' can actually exist is outside of a material brain.

Now, of course, that wouldn't mean it does actually exist. But I think there are good arguments to the existence of something immaterial. I'll save that to make sure we are on the same page with the other things already.

[The Tanager]

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.

No, the claim does not, in any way, mean that. Dwelling like physical beings do did not refer to the fact of being able to dwell in, or interact with, physical reality. It referred to how it wouldn't interact physically, which is how physical beings interact with other physical realities.

Do either of you have any good reason to think something must be physical to interact with physical reality?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #43]

Do you have any good reason to think something must be physical to interact with physical reality?

The concept of the "non-physical" is an unnecessary gap-filler often invoked to explain phenomena we do not yet fully understand. Throughout history, what was once labeled as non-physical-such as lightning or magnetism-was later explained through expanding physical knowledge. Similarly, current gaps in understanding, like those surrounding consciousness or gravity, may reflect unknown aspects of the physical rather than evidence of a truly non-physical realm. By acknowledging our limited understanding and avoiding assumptions about the non-physical, we remain open to discovering deeper, unified explanations within the physical framework, rendering the non-physical an unnecessary and premature categorization.

In this framework, a creative God-Mind need not be assumed "non-material" while still being a profound and foundational truth-concept. Such a God-Mind could be understood as an intrinsic aspect of reality, operating through the laws of nature and the physical universe without requiring a separate non-material existence. This perspective allows for a divined, creative force to remain central to our understanding of existence while staying consistent with the idea that all phenomena, even those we perceive as abstract or immaterial, may ultimately emerge from the still-mysterious depths of the physical cosmos.

[The Tanager]

The concept of the "non-physical" is an unnecessary gap-filler often invoked to explain phenomena we do not yet fully understand.

By some, yes, but I haven't done so. And others take a science of the gaps approach, which is equally fallacious.

If there is a good reason why something must be physical to interact with physical reality, then that would undercut some of my beliefs (which is why I asked the question I did). If you don't have one, then you should remain open to the possibility of the existence of the non-physical and be ready to deal with any actual premises and reasoning I'll offer for the existence of the non-physical instead of just assuming I'm making an immaterial of the gaps fallacy.

[William]

By some, yes, but I haven't done so.

I have not stated or otherwise assumed you have done so. My comment was addressing the general tendency to invoke "immateriality" as a gap-filler.

And others take a science of the gaps approach, which is equally fallacious.

My position on the existence of the immaterial is that it is an unnecessary assumption about the nature of The Divined. Without removing a God-Creator from the mix, I propose that The Divined can be presented as consisting of a yet-to-be-discovered material underlying all subsequent material (what we refer to as creation). I don't see how this is "equally fallacious," and you haven't demonstrated how it is.

If there is a good reason why something must be physical to interact with physical reality, then that would undercut some of my beliefs (which is why I asked the question I did). If you don't have one, then you should remain open to the possibility of the existence of the non-physical and be ready to deal with any actual premises and reasoning I'll offer for the existence of the non-physical instead of just assuming I'm making an immaterial of the gaps fallacy.

I've presented what I consider to be good reasoning, but it seems that was not fully addressed in your response. To summarize: All known interactions between entities require a shared medium or framework. Introducing a non-physical entity interacting with the physical adds complexity unless a mechanism is clearly outlined.

Some see in the image, "gaps" and these are necessary in order for any picture to portray an image. I see no gaps as the image is whole, even while distinctions are made.

The so-called "gaps" can either be seen as spaces that define distinctions or as integral elements of a complete and unified whole. It reflects a philosophical truth:

For those who see gaps: They represent the boundaries that allow form and structure to emerge, making the image intelligible and meaningful.
For those who see wholeness: The "gaps" are not voids but intrinsic to the completeness of the image, where every distinction contributes to the unity.

My interpretation invites reflection on how we perceive separation and unity-not only in an image but in life, existence, and even concepts like The Divined. The apparent distinctions are part of the greater whole, reinforcing that what we might fallaciously call "gaps" are necessary for the wholeness to manifest in our eventual understanding.

The process of understanding involves transcending the illusion of gaps to see the wholeness that was/is/always will be present. This perspective encourages humility and patience in our search for meaning, as even the "gaps" are essential to the unfolding of deeper truths.

This reflects that there is no divine that is real and there are no gaps that are real.

There is only the divined.

[The Tanager]

I have not stated or otherwise assumed you have done so. My comment was addressing the general tendency to invoke "immateriality" as a gap-filler.

I was simply making it clear that I didn't fall into the (possibly) general tendency.

My position on the existence of the immaterial is that it is an unnecessary assumption about the nature of The Divined's "makeup." Without removing a God-Creator from the mix, I propose that The Divined can be presented as "made" of a yet-to-be-discovered material underlying all subsequent material (what we refer to as creation). I don't see how this is "equally fallacious," and you haven't demonstrated how it is.

I was making a general comment about that, not accusing you of doing so.

I've presented what I consider to be good reasoning, but it seems that was not fully addressed in your response. To summarize: All known interactions between entities require a shared medium or framework. Introducing a non-physical entity interacting with the physical adds complexity unless a mechanism is clearly outlined.

I'm sorry that I missed your offered reasoning. What evidence did you offer that all known interactions between entities require a shared medium or framework? For instance, you would have had to demonstrate that the "mind" is physical for your claim to be true. Otherwise, there would be a known interaction ("mind" and, say, one's arm) where the requirement of a shared medium is not proven to be so, which should lead you to make an agnostic statement rather than the one you did.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #47]

I'm sorry that I missed your offered reasoning.

Fortunately, it is available to the reader.

What evidence did you offer that all known interactions between entities require a shared medium or framework?

I offered observation which is interpreted within the framework I have so-far conveyed to the reader.

You would have had to demonstrate that the "mind" is physical for your claim to be true.

Why? Is this because you are you divining the mind as "immaterial" until otherwise shown not to be?

Otherwise, there would be a known interaction ("mind" and, say, one's arm) where the requirement of a shared medium is not proven to be so, which should lead you to make an agnostic statement rather than the one you did.

It only appears not to be agnostic due to the "gaps" being considered "real" due to the non-agnostic belief-claim that "mind is immaterial".

In my framework, the assumption that the immaterial is real has been removed and will remain excluded until a reasonable argument is presented demonstrating its necessity. Observations of the universe and how they are divined through this framework currently reveal no correlation requiring the inclusion of immateriality.

[The Tanager]

What evidence did you offer that all known interactions between entities require a shared medium or framework?

I offered observation which is interpreted within the framework I have so-far conveyed to the reader.

How is offering an observation interpreted from within a framework evidence for the claim under question? Or are you saying that it isn't evidence for it; it's just an assumption? Or something else?

You would have had to demonstrate that the "mind" is physical for your claim to be true.

Why? Is this because you are you divining the mind as "immaterial" until otherwise shown not to be?

No. That would be begging the question, which is an irrational thing to do and something I always try to avoid.

Otherwise, there would be a known interaction ("mind" and, say, one's arm) where the requirement of a shared medium is not proven to be so, which should lead you to make an agnostic statement rather than the one you did.

It only appears not to be agnostic due to the "gaps" being considered "real" due to the non-agnostic belief-claim that "mind is immaterial".

In my framework, the assumption that the immaterial is real has been removed and will remain excluded until a reasonable argument is presented demonstrating its necessity. Observations of the universe and how they are divined through this framework currently reveal no correlation requiring the inclusion of immateriality.

You are rejecting one assumption, but simply assuming an alternative. All assumptions are irrational. I'm assuming neither.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #49]

You are rejecting one assumption, but simply assuming an alternative.

You are mistakenly divining that, but not showing what you say is true.

It's important to return to your initial claim: that the non-physical exists or interacts with the physical. My position has been to remove the assumption of immateriality, as I see no evidence or correlation to justify including it in my framework.

Your argument that rejecting one assumption is simply adopting another appears to be based on your mistaken divining of my position. You have not yet demonstrated that this is the case or provided evidence to support your critique.

Your critique of my position, as noted, does not address the fact that your initial claim remains unsupported. I invite you to present a clear, reasonable argument or evidence for your claim about the non-physical. Until then, your position relies on assumptions that remain unjustified.

See also for more critique of "The God of The Gaps."

In my framework, the concept of 'God' or a creator mind has not been removed. What has been excluded is the assumption that this creator mind is immaterial. The distinction lies in recognizing that a creator mind can be understood as fundamentally material or grounded in a yet-to-be-discovered foundational substance that underlies all of existence. This adjustment removes unnecessary assumptions while maintaining the integrity of the creator concept.

If you believe the creator mind must be immaterial, it is incumbent upon you to provide reasoning or evidence for this assertion. Until such a case is made, my framework remains consistent with observable phenomena and avoids introducing speculative immateriality where it is not demonstrably necessary.