If God is everywhere, why can’t God be everything?

[Emproph]

-Just in case anyone else is also losing sleep over this one...
________

If God is Everywhere, how do you separate the location of God from the location in question?

–think molecular.

If God’s consciousness exists in the exact same location – as everything that exists, is it logically possible to consider the consciousness of God to be separate from our physical surroundings?

If not, then is it then logically possible to conclude that everything is literally made of God consciousness, and always has been?

Why would God occupy the same exact space as everything in the universe, yet choose to be separate from it?

Didn’t God have to think us up, first? And in thinking us up, doesn’t God also think up our thoughts – about God?

If God is in control of everything, and is everywhere, why then would God not actually be everything-everywhere?

[dsdrane]

Works for me!

[u-dog]

I can only give you what I think is the classical Christian response. the name for what you are describing is "pantheism" which Christianity has always rejected. We have always maintained that there is 1) a distinction between God and creation (not necessarily a seperation but a distinction) and 2) that God doesn't EMERGE from creation (in the way that consciousness "emerges" from the interaction of brain cells) but that creation comes from the discrete actions and intentions of God.

So as long as the conciousness of God is distinct from Creation and it is understood that creation comes from God and not vice versa. There is no problem (from a Christian point of view which is all I'm qualified to talk about) with God being IN everything.

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I can only give you what I think is the classical Christian response. the name for what you are describing is "pantheism" which Christianity has always rejected. We have always maintained that there is 1) a distinction between God and creation (not necessarily a seperation but a distinction) and 2) that God doesn't EMERGE from creation (in the way that consciousness "emerges" from the interaction of brain cells) but that creation comes from the discrete actions and intentions of God.

So as long as the conciousness of God is distinct from Creation and it is understood that creation comes from God and not vice versa. There is no problem (from a Christian point of view which is all I'm qualified to talk about) with God being IN everything.

I didn't read Patrick as negating a distinction between the Creator and Creation nor did I read him positing that God emerged from Creation.

I read his point in terms of God's omnipresence and the sine qua non of Existence.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I can only give you what I think is the classical Christian response. the name for what you are describing is "pantheism" which Christianity has always rejected. We have always maintained that there is 1) a distinction between God and creation (not necessarily a seperation but a distinction) and 2) that God doesn't EMERGE from creation (in the way that consciousness "emerges" from the interaction of brain cells) but that creation comes from the discrete actions and intentions of God.

.

Maybe the interaction of brain cells emerge from consciousness.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

I didn't read Patrick as negating a distinction between the Creator and Creation nor did I read him positing that God emerged from Creation.

I read his point in terms of God's omnipresence and the sine qua non of Existence.

I didn't either, David! I hope I didn't sound defensive! I was just clarifying how I understand Christianity to have dealt with this idea in the past.

[BenL]

Originally Posted by Emproph

[I][SIZE=1]If God is in control of everything, and is everywhere, why then would God not actually be everything-everywhere?

Because she has already been there, done that. She doesn't need to hog all the love to herself ... that's why she creates.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I can only give you what I think is the classical Christian response. the name for what you are describing is "pantheism"

I admit it, I am openly pantheist!

which Christianity has always rejected. We have always maintained that there is 1) a distinction between God and creation (not necessarily a seperation but a distinction)

And yes, no. I don't pray to the tree on my front lawn...I gave that up years ago...(it stopped praying back...)

__
Ok, so

Originally Posted by Emproph

Why would God occupy the same exact space as everything in the universe, yet choose to be separate from it?

I understand that the idea seems absurd, but does the question make sense? Do you know if the question has been posed and adressed in quite this simplistic a way before?

It almost seems like one of those things that nobody would even think to ask.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by BenL

Because she has already been there, done that. She doesn't need to hog all the love to herself ... that's why she creates.

Which I think touches on what I’m saying. The only motivation for creating is to enjoy/experience something new – in other words, something other than “been there, done that.”

Which in a sense, makes sense, considering that God is infinite, which is by definition a perpetual state of increasing. Which then begs the question, if God is in a perpetual state of increasing, how could God itself ever be fully aware of it’s own magnitude?

The magnitude of infinity is by definition, in flux.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Which I think touches on what I’m saying. The only motivation for creating is to enjoy/experience something new – in other words, something other than “been there, done that.”

Which in a sense, makes sense, considering that God is infinite, which is by definition a perpetual state of increasing. Which then begs the question, if God is in a perpetual state of increasing, how could God itself ever be fully aware of it’s own magnitude?

The magnitude of infinity is by definition, in flux.

Only if infinity exists WITHIN the framework of time. I believe that God exists OUTSIDE of time and that flux/change/process/increase/decrease is NO PART of who/what God is. I imagine God holding a mango shaped bubble in the palm of her hand. the bubble is Creation. Time flows INSIDE the bubble but not outside of it. God experiences every moment within the bubble as eternally NOW and no more "real" than any other moment in the bubble. this is how I understand the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Any "process" that we percieve in God is an optical illusion created by our being inside the bubble.

A God like this is nearly unimaginable by a finite creature inside the bubble. The only motivation for creation for a creature on the inside of the bubble is, as you say, the desire to experience newness. Who knows what "motivation" looks or feels like to an entity who is a-temporal? not me.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by u-dog

A God like this is nearly unimaginable by a finite creature inside the bubble. The only motivation for creation for a creature on the inside of the bubble is, as you say, the desire to experience newness. Who knows what "motivation" looks or feels like to an entity who is a-temporal? not me.

Ah yes, but that is what each of tries to do when we theologize, is it not? For most, I will avoid saying all, there is a driving force to know and be known - it works in community ad it works in theology. We are driven to understad God as best we can, and none of us can come remotely close to understandig God fully.

A well respected, but quite absent, member of this forum (who happens to post more frequently on a very conservative and contentious forum) posed the questions, "So, what was/is the point of creation? Why did God create? What did it do for God?". I doing so, he created one hell of a furor. But, from a point of theologizing, they are important questions. Emproph's question reminds me of those - great minds DO think alike.

So, to be a little contentious, is creation to God like a television to us? If God is outside of time and space, but created in this "bubble", what does the universe inside the bubble do for God? Why would God bother? Doesn't that make God distant and voyeuristic - living somehow vicariously through that which God created?

On the other hand, can God be resident in creation? Can God be part and parcel of what God created?

Or can God inbue God's spirit within what has been and is being created, thereby associating and investing Godself into each and every molecule?

This is the timeless question of imminence vs. transcendance, is it not?

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Which in a sense, makes sense, considering that God is infinite, which is by definition a perpetual state of increasing. Which then begs the question, if God is in a perpetual state of increasing, how could God itself ever be fully aware of it’s own magnitude?

The magnitude of infinity is by definition, in flux.

Infinity is, after all, a concept of finite beings.

A theory presented in the 19th century by Georg Canter - one that has yet to be disproven and, in fact, makes up the basis of set theory and game theory - is the transfinite number system. He posited that infinity does not equal infinity, fitting loosely with Emproph's "infinity is in flux."

Between the whole numbers 0 and 1 are an infinite number of fractions. This infinity is, however, bounded by finite limits. Is this infinity equal to that represented by the number of positive integers, which is only finitely bound on one end, or the number of all integers, which is not bound on either end.

To complicate it further, the infinity represented by integers contains within it another infinite number of infinities - each "space" between integers contains an infinite number of fractions, and there are an infinite number of these bound infinities because there is an infinite number of "spaces" between the integers.

At first, Canter proposed that the number of fractions equaled infinity squared. But then he realized that there was a distinct difference between an infinte set bound on both ends and an infinite set unbound on both ends. Squaring requires exactly equal cardinality (count of set members) which doesn't exist in this case. It further cmpounds when we consider that so far, I've only addressed a one dimensional system.

Infinity is as foreign to our understanding as God, but we try and try to comprehend both within the finitude in which we dwell.

Now, how this adds to the conversation I'm not really sure. I just wanted to have a little fun - oh, crap, I'm such a geek.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Ah yes, but that is what each of tries to do when we theologize, is it not? For most, I will avoid saying all, there is a driving force to know and be known - it works in community ad it works in theology. We are driven to understad God as best we can, and none of us can come remotely close to understandig God fully.

A well respected, but quite absent, member of this forum (who happens to post more frequently on a very conservative and contentious forum) posed the questions, "So, what was/is the point of creation? Why did God create? What did it do for God?". I doing so, he created one hell of a furor. But, from a point of theologizing, they are important questions. Emproph's question reminds me of those - great minds DO think alike.

So, to be a little contentious, is creation to God like a television to us? If God is outside of time and space, but created in this "bubble", what does the universe inside the bubble do for God? Why would God bother? Doesn't that make God distant and voyeuristic - living somehow vicariously through that which God created?

On the other hand, can God be resident in creation? Can God be part and parcel of what God created?

Or can God inbue God's spirit within what has been and is being created, thereby associating and investing Godself into each and every molecule?

This is the timeless question of imminence vs. transcendance, is it not?

Perhaps it is in this context that the Doctrine of the Trinity has its fullest meaning? God the "father" exists outside of time and holds all of creation including time in "his" eternal hand experiencing every moment all the time for all time. God the "son" is incarnate in the creation experiencing moment by moment just like the creatures. God the SPirit is radically immanent in and around every molecule of creation in each moment. Is it possible for God to be both transcendant and immanent, distant and intimate apart from a doctrine of triunity or something like it?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Andy

To complicate it further, the infinity represented by integers contains within it another infinite number of infinities - each "space" between integers contains an infinite number of fractions, and there are an infinite number of these bound infinities because there is an infinite number of "spaces" between the integers.

Infinity is as foreign to our understanding as God, but we try and try to comprehend both within the finitude in which we dwell.

When I first started reading this thread, the thought came to mind that the original question was predicated on the underlying assumption that God is a thing, which is perfectly understandable seeing that we are- seemingly- surrounded by 'things' and a 'thing' ourselves.

But is this the nature of Reality?

If I understand it correctly, the perspective within physics is that everything we see is composed of particles which - from the micoscopic perspectice- contains a vast amount of space between them. This seems to suggest that the deeper one looks the more there is- to quote Gertrude Stein- no there there.

What does one do with that thought? Find more space around it?

I don't know if the existence of God is the point here, but it's not lost on me that even the Buddhists, who posit that there is no ultimate Being, have the understanding that 'Emptiness' - one might say the space between thoughts (as well as things?)- is full.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Perhaps it is in this context that the Doctrine of the Trinity has its fullest meaning? God the "father" exists outside of time and holds all of creation including time in "his" eternal hand experiencing every moment all the time for all time. God the "son" is incarnate in the creation experiencing moment by moment just like the creatures. God the SPirit is radically immanent in and around every molecule of creation in each moment. Is it possible for God to be both transcendant and immanent, distant and intimate apart from a doctrine of triunity or something like it?

And you say you're not a Hindu.

[BrentRichards]

I'm getting dizzy.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

I'm getting dizzy.

This is new? I would suggest putting your head between your legs. If you can manage that, I would very much prefer that you not describe what you do while in that position.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

This is new? I would suggest putting your head between your legs. If you can manage that, I would very much prefer that you not describe what you do while in that position.

He could do that back when he was a swimmer and a diver... not any more

[BrentRichards]

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

And you say you're not a Hindu.

I get the reference Zerbie and I am chuckling aloud here at my desk