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]

You are still begging the question by inserting your own theological presuppositions as the exclusive baseline for the entire text.

No I am trying to get clarification from you as to who or what you are referring to when you ask about "god" in scripture. The term comes up throughout and is contextually referring to many different things, persons or entities. So when you ask if your given definition applies to "god" in scripture, which of the forementioned entities are you asking about? Do you know?

Im refering to the Absolute Truth, the Ultimate Foundation of reality.

I don't know what that means, it sounds like an abstract idea, and ideas only exist in the minds of those that hold them. God on the other hand is a person whose existence is not dependent on the thinking process of anyone or anything; "truth" and "reality" are abstract concepts in the sense that they are not entities, persons, or conscious beings so the God of the "New Testament" cannot be reduced to either.

If you are asking if your definition mirrors ideas in the bible, then yes they do. But if you are asking if the definition fits the principal God of the Christians as resented in the New Testament, then I would say no. The God of the Christians was most certainly not an abstract entity (like law or power or even ... life) he identified as the God of Moses, Abraham and Isaac namely YHWH (Jehovah) and is presented as an individual with his own personality, will and self awareness. That said, Jehovah is the SOURCE of absolute truth and there can be no reality without him (since he is the creator) but unless you are speaking metaphorically (ie "God is Love") then your definition is not scripturally accurate.

[JehovahsWitness]

My inquiry was specifically about the text of the New Testament. In John 1:1, the Gospel establishes that 'the Logos was God.' Historically and philosophically, the term Logos denotes the Supreme Reason and the immutable divine Order that sustains and governs reality.

I would advise you to do a little research on the Greek of John 1:1 before you attempt to use it to come to such a sweeping conclusion. Further I do believe you asked to consider your "definition" scripturally not "historically and philosophically" and I believe you were asking about defining GOD. The Word (logos) is not there identified as God (ho theos). You might like to clarify which of the two individuals mentioned in John 1:1 you are trying to define.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

No, it sounds like pantheism, @Vilferatus, that denies that God is a separate Creator but, instead, is the assumption that God is identified with the universe as a principle in the cosmos. If that is true, it denies the Bible's first verse, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and John 1:1, "In the beginning the Word was with God and was God."

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

No, it sounds like pantheism, @Vilferatus, that denies that God is a separate Creator but, instead, is the assumption that God is identified with the universe as a principle in the cosmos. If that is true, it denies the Bible's first verse, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and John 1:1, "In the beginning the Word was with God and was God."

You are still projecting a traditional theological framework onto a model that operates under a different, more fundamental hierarchy. Let me clarify the metaphysical structure of my model so we can avoid further semantic confusion:

1. God is the Absolute Foundation: God is the immutable Law, Principle, and cosmic Order. This is not the material universe (which disproves your accusation of pantheism); it is the ultimate, unconditioned prerequisite for any organized reality to exist.

2. Intelligence is Coeternal with God: Intelligence—defined as the elemental, increated, and eternal core of individual consciousness—is coeternal with God. It has no beginning and cannot be destroyed.

3. The Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit: The Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and all of us exist fundamentally as distinct Intelligences. Therefore, as organized, functional divine entities, the Father and Jesucristo came after God (the Absolute Order). Without God as the foundational Law, these Intelligences could not exist or function as they do now, just like nothing else in the organized cosmos could.

This does not deny Genesis 1:1 or John 1:1. It simply explains how creation and the Logos operate: they are the organization of coeternal Intelligences under the supreme direction of the ultimate, immutable Law. Your objection of pantheism misses the mark because it confuses the material cosmos with the foundational Principle that governs both the cosmos and the divine individuals within it.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #14]

Upon what Bible passages do you base this "model," @Vilferatus? Or is it some philosopher's idea apart from the Bible that you base it on?

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #14]

Upon what Bible passages do you base this "model," @Vilferatus? Or is it some philosopher's idea apart from the Bible that you base it on?

It is my own model, using the information in the bible, and LDS scriptures

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #16]

How are the LDS scriptures different from, say, the English Standard Version, which was translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew without paraphrasing. Also, @Vilferatus, why don't you base it only on the Bible?

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #16]

How are the LDS scriptures different from, say, the English Standard Version, which was translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew without paraphrasing. Also, @Vilferatus, why don't you base it only on the Bible?

Because the Bible dont offer any detail on that matter, but the LDS scripture does.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #18]

Then, I wouldn't be very interested in it, @Vilferatus. By the way, what does the LDS Bible have that the Bible doesn't, the Book of Mormon? What else?

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #18]

Then, I wouldn't be very interested in it, @Vilferatus. By the way, what does the LDS Bible have that the Bible doesn't, the Book of Mormon? What else?

Doctrine and covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. If I take some concepts from LDS scriptures, you are not interested?

Why?