Is the definition of God as "The Law or Order sustaining reality" compatible with the biblical text?

[Vilferatus]

Hello everyone,

I would like to open a debate on whether a specific philosophical definition of God aligns with the narrative and theological framework found in the scriptures.

To ensure a productive debate and avoid semantic confusion, let us establish the following framework:


Major Assumptions for this Thread:

* Participants agree to analyze this strictly in relation to the canonical biblical text as a cohesive narrative or theological library ("in its entirety").

* The validity of the Bible itself as a source of authority is assumed for the sake of this argument.


Key Definitions:

* God (for this proposal): The immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order that sustains, governs, and directs all of reality into and towards its Supreme State.

* Supreme State: The ultimate, perfected realization or fulfillment of existence (e.g., the ultimate expression of harmony, purpose, or creation).


Debate Question:
Could this specific definition of God be considered compatible with biblical teaching and the biblical text as a whole?

[JehovahsWitness]

.... modeling God as the immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order is perfectly compatible with the text.

Okay, so divine qualities are reflected in the "logos". Now use scripture (alone) to prove that said qualities can exist unsourced. In other words, you need to prove that the biblical view is that immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order are synonyms for god rather than descriptions of how the mind of the God works To propose otherwise is to reduce the Almighty to a mathematical formula and fails to take into account the whole scope of his personality.

While it is true that God's innate qualities (like his love or wisdom) cannot be separated from him (any more than his mind can be separated from his intelligence) , his qualities and his person are not absolute equivalents since his qualities are SUBJECT to his will not the other way round.

REVELATION 4:11

“You are worthy, Jehovah* our God, to receive the glory+ and the honor+ and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

God is not logic, God is logical. God is not law, God creates/generates law. God is not order, Jehovah is a God *of* order. He is the formulator, the generator and the source of all things and it is him as a WHOLE ( in perfect balance), that is the basis of all reality not any one aspect of his mind.


JW

[Vilferatus]

.... modeling God as the immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order is perfectly compatible with the text.

Okay, so divine qualities are reflected in the "logos". Now use scripture (alone) to prove that said qualities can exist unsourced. In other words, you need to prove that the biblical view is that immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order are synonyms for god rather than descriptions of how the mind of the God works To propose otherwise is to reduce the Almighty to a mathematical formula and fails to take into account the whole scope of his personality.

While it is true that God's innate qualities (like his love or wisdom) cannot be separated from him (any more than his mind can be separated from his intelligence) , his qualities and his person are not absolute equivalents since his qualities are SUBJECT to his will not the other way round.

REVELATION 4:11

“You are worthy, Jehovah* our God, to receive the glory+ and the honor+ and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

God is not logic, God is logical. God is not law, God creates/generates law. God is not order, Jehovah is a God *of* order. He is the formulator, the generator and the source of all things and it is him as a WHOLE ( in perfect balance), that is the basis of all reality not any one aspect of his mind.


JW

You are still imposing your framework (your interpretation of the text) to prove mine wrong. You know anyone could do the same right?

The difference is not if you can find an isolated verse that means what you want it to mean... the difference is if that meaning would make the whole biblical teachings and context make sense or not.

Your interpretation leads to the Trinitarian dogmatic view, that even the most educated defenders of that view accept that they have to recurr to "divine mistery" becuase it doesnt make logical sense.

I know you are not trinitarian, but if you claim Jesus is not God, you have an even worse problem with the bible.

Im willing to check how would you defend that Jesus is not God with the bible if you claim that.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are still imposing your framework (your interpretation of the text) to prove mine wrong.

Well proving you wrong from the text is the point of the debate , but I gave you an opportunity to present a counterargument... see below

...so divine qualities are reflected in the "logos". Now use scripture (alone) to prove that said qualities can exist unsourced. In other words, you need to prove that the biblical view is that immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order are synonyms for god rather than descriptions of how the mind of the God works

Do you have anything ?


JW

[Vilferatus]

You are still imposing your framework (your interpretation of the text) to prove mine wrong.

Well proving you wrong from the text is the point of the debate , but I gave you an opportunity to present a counterargument... see below

...so divine qualities are reflected in the "logos". Now use scripture (alone) to prove that said qualities can exist unsourced. In other words, you need to prove that the biblical view is that immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order are synonyms for god rather than descriptions of how the mind of the God works

Do you have anything ?


JW

Yes i have something: The whole bible, read it.

You want me to show you all the scriptures that are compatible with my model? It is literally all of them as long as you interpret them in a way it makes it non contradictory with the rest... wich is exactly the same that you are doing with your framework... im not gonna play that game.

My goal is to cpmpare internal consistency of the framework, not use a different framework to judge yours... that leads to nowhere. Everyone can defend a dogmatic position.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are still imposing your framework (your interpretation of the text) to prove mine wrong.

Well proving you wrong from the text is the point of the debate , but I gave you an opportunity to present a counterargument... see below

...so divine qualities are reflected in the "logos". Now use scripture (alone) to prove that said qualities can exist unsourced. In other words, you need to prove that the biblical view is that immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order are synonyms for god rather than descriptions of how the mind of the God works

Do you have anything ?


JW

Yes i have something: The whole bible, read it.

You want me to show you all the scriptures that are compatible with my model? ...

Yes, I do.

But feel free to choose 2 or 3 of the main ones to support your argument.



=================================================

REQUEST FOR COUNTER ARGUMENT

Do you have anything ?

Yes i have something: The whole bible, read it.

Telling someone to read an entire body of work instead of providing a specific counterargument is an evasion or an unsupported assertion

It is literally all of them as long as you interpret them in a way it makes it non contradictory with the rest... ... im not gonna play that game.

Moving the Burden of Proof: The person making a claim must provide evidence for it. Telling you to go find it yourself shifts that burden onto you.

[JehovahsWitness]

My model stands: The text of John 1:1 establishes the Logos as God. In the language of the text, the Logos represents the foundational cosmic Order and Reason. Therefore, defining God as the immutable Law/Order is textually compatible.

NOTE

My model does not claim that the Logos is the person of Almighty God ...

LOGOS : Logic or Communication?

The etymological root of logos (λόγος) is the gathering arranging of ideas into a logical order (The root leǵ- was used in its earliest sense, to mean picking up stones, gathering firewood, or collecting crops). If John however had wanted to convey the idea of "gathering" and "ordering" logic independent of expression he could have chosen alternative words (ennoia (intent/thought) or dianoia (mindset)). The context of John 1, indicates the writer was using Logos as an outward expression of said logical ordering, indeed, first century usage of "logos" was simply an act of outward communication. So the suggestion that John is presenting "logic" and "law" as the fundamental basis of our reality is unfounded, if he is presenting a "formula" it's NOT of logic floating unattached in a cosmic universe but of the ordered communication of divine logic.

IN WHAT SENSE WAS THE LOGOS "GODLIKE"?

So if we are really analysing the Greek, the expression "and the word was God" it would be that "the logic communicated was godlike". So the point isn't that God is logic, but (like the word) God communicates logically.

AGENT OR ABSTRACT

The argument has been made that if we break John 1:1 down to its most basic level, we come to "pure" logic/law. However that is evidently not what John is communicating.

- "and the Word was with God" (kai ho logosēn pros ton theon). The Greek preposition "pros" (with) conveys more than two or more elements co-existing as part of a generic group (for that the writer could have chosen the word "para" or "meta" or "syn") . PROS literally means "towards" or "facing" and was the standard way in Koine Greek to express a personal relationship between individuals. So John's formula wasn't just saying, break it down and you get logic or law, he was saying break it down and you get a communication (ie thoughts transmited). He that says "thoughts" says mind, he that says mind says agent. Add "the logos" and you have a relationship. Again, he that says relationship is speaking about AGENTS rather than ABSTRACT NOTIONS.

- "by means of him was life" (John 1:4): An abstract law or a logic does not possess "life." If that life is shared, the logic or reason can only be a tool to do so and not life itself. Since that which came into existence (through the logos) was "life " , the most basic building block or start cannot be "logic" it must be self perpetuating, life. Logic can be the means by which one decides, directs and channels that life, but like a jug pouring water into a glass, that which is being directed (received) cannot be the tool but rather the content.

- the Word became flesh (John 1:14). Agrueably, if the Word was merely the abstract notion of law, its manifestation in the material world would have been through a set or rules or a mathematical formula. That he came as a free moral agent, an individual, implies he came from being the same and reflects the same (ie Theos is also an individual not an abstract notion). If in turn he (The Logos) was a reflection of (shared qualities of) that one, notice what John concludes "Because the Law was given through Moses,+ the undeserved kindness+ and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ" Note he CONTRASTS the word made flesh with Law. In other words, breaking the word down to his most basic level we are not left with "pure logic" or "pure law" but the divine qualties of kindess and truth.

CONCLUSION The bible does not support a panlogistic view that logic or reason as the ultimate substance of reality, indeed John's "formula" has divine self-perpetuating and communicable life as the source of all existence, reflected in the logos' loving relationship with a personal God and not an abstract notion.

JOHN 1:14b

... we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father

[Vilferatus]

You are still imposing your framework (your interpretation of the text) to prove mine wrong.

Well proving you wrong from the text is the point of the debate , but I gave you an opportunity to present a counterargument... see below

...so divine qualities are reflected in the "logos". Now use scripture (alone) to prove that said qualities can exist unsourced. In other words, you need to prove that the biblical view is that immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order are synonyms for god rather than descriptions of how the mind of the God works

Do you have anything ?


JW

Yes i have something: The whole bible, read it.

You want me to show you all the scriptures that are compatible with my model? ...

Yes, I do.

But feel free to choose 2 or 3 of the main ones to support your argument.



=================================================

REQUEST FOR COUNTER ARGUMENT

Do you have anything ?

Yes i have something: The whole bible, read it.

Telling someone to read an entire body of work instead of providing a specific counterargument is an evasion or an unsupported assertion

It is literally all of them as long as you interpret them in a way it makes it non contradictory with the rest... ... im not gonna play that game.

Moving the Burden of Proof: The person making a claim must provide evidence for it. Telling you to go find it yourself shifts that burden onto you.

"You want me to show you all the scriptures that are compatible with my model? It is literally all of them as long as you interpret them in a way it makes it non contradictory with the rest... wich is exactly the same that you are doing with your framework... im not gonna play that game.

My goal is to cpmpare internal consistency of the framework, not use a different framework to judge yours... that leads to nowhere. Everyone can defend a dogmatic position."

Very interesting how you cut the whole answer, the same your JW bible doest. They just erase the part that shows how your dogmas make no sense... have you seen your bible? is missing some verses right?

I just told you im not playing that useless game to feed your ego.

[JehovahsWitness]

But feel free to choose 2 or 3 of the main ones to support your argument.

I would be most interested if you can support your view with scripture alone.

LOGOS CHRISTOLOGY / THE COSMIC CHRIST

Derived from the Greek word Logos (meaning "reason," "logic," or "word"), early Christian theologians adapted Greek philosophical concepts to explain God.

• The Concept: It defines God (specifically the pre-existent Christ) as the ultimate cosmic reason and rational order that structures, sustains, and gives meaning to the universe.
• Source: This is famously rooted in the opening of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)..."

When applied to theology, panlogism argues that God, the Absolute, and pure reason/logic are fundamentally identical. Instead of God being a separate personal being who uses or creates logic, God is the self-unfolding system of logic itself.

Is panlogism compatible with the biblical God YHWH?
viewtopic.php?p=1193082#p1193082

FURTHER READING

How Real Is God to You?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981122

Mankind's Search for God
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/sh

RELATED POSTS

What is the biblical definition of God?
viewtopic.php?p=1192816#p1192816

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, PANLOGISM and ...THE DIVINE PERSONALITY

[Bible_Student]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Clearly, in a "philosophical" milieu where "God" is reduced to a concept rather than a living Being with His own identity and personality—where a mere attribute taken to its ultimate expression suffices for speculation about that god (spelled with a lowercase "g" because it is an "experimental" god)—the situation is different.

However, anyone who regards the God of the Bible as real and respects Him (fearing to say anything inappropriate about Him) has a clearly identified God: recognized not only by His unique attributes but also by the personal name through which He revealed Himself and by which He explicitly identifies Himself so often: YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah).