a. If God exists, then we would only know about Him if He let us know.
b. If, IF, God exists, then this revelation (prop. a) would trump everything else and it would be a dangerous, wild assumption to start thinking about Him as another agent alongside gravity, dogs, logic and everything of this world.
c. If God existed, then things like gravity could be figured out because they aren’t just accidents.
d. Yet prop. c is relying on a God with certain properties: he has to be ultimate transcending the forces in the world.
e. The God in prop c. has to be deliberate in a bringing order out of chaos way.
f. Learning about things like gravity, dogs and logic would not be the same as learning about God.
g. We could predict lots of people to make that mistake and think God would be found in those studies.
h. Less obviously but just as certainly, we could predict lots of people would make the mistake that says since God can’t be found in the everything of this world, He cannot be.
i. People will imagine many gods that are not the God that reveals Himself (if prop. a is true).
j. People will want their god(s) to be about love because they realise that is the most important thing in their lives.
k. Love requires another: a person to be subject to your love who is not you.
l. So God either needs to create the world or he had a pre-existing person to love.
m. God does not need to create the world (prop. a, d) since he is ultimate, needing nothing.
n. So God needs to have a pre-existing person to love.
o. If this God was made up of more than one person, he could be described not simply as loving but as love.
p. There would need to be three persons in this God- One who loves the Other and the One who expresses that love.
q. A God defined as ultimate who was love would be bound by their own character to share itself.
r. God would be self-bound to create that which could enjoy God.
s. Creation (prop. e) would be a self-authenticating act of generosity of this God.
t. If this God is a relationship (prop. p), and this God is self-bound to share his ultimate love (prop. q), then his Creation will involve relational beings who can appreciate him.
u. If this creation was made to know God, then the things that were important to them would be things found in God- relationships, power, creativity, order, and most importantly love.
v. So the creation of this God would have relationships and power and order and the ability to love and form relationships so that by analogy and comparison, the creation could know the ultimate he revealed himself.
w. If God is what the creation was made to know but God is not the same as the world they live in, the created things will confuse the two. (prop. g)
x. But if this God (in his ultimacy) decided to actually get into the midst of this world, then the gulf between the creation and the Creator would be there for all to see.
y. So we could expect that at some point, this God might just write himself into his own story.
z. So while this God must reveal himself, his creations can still make sense of it all.
Your Correspondent, Popular amongst those ladies who think integrity is the ultimate aphrodisiac
Ø. God is simply all there is, the Universes, eternity, and more significantly You. You are God thinking, but on a not yet so developed level. Realising that nothing doesn’t exist is a god start.
Bless
Not sure I get the line of thinking behind prop c.
I’m just generally confused by this post.
D
It goes wrong for me at c:
c. If God existed, then things like gravity could be figured out because they aren’t just accidents.
Let’s take it for granted that gravity (as descibed by Newton, Einstein or whatever) exists in some other universe. Why would the inhabitants of that universe only be able to ‘figure it out’ if it came about by some non-accidental means? Why does how gravity came about determine whether or not they would be able to discover it (in the mathematical sense)? Surely they would still be affected by it? Are you trying to say that if gravity came about by accidental means then the inhabitants wouldn’t have the mental ability to discover it? I find it hard to make the rational link here, please assist.
Also, if God did exist is it then impossible for gravity to have come about accidentally? I’m not that familiar with the bible but from what I can remember did God not make some accident during creation (in the Garden of Eden, giving rise to Satan and the ejection of Adam and Eve).
Also:
e. The God in prop c. has to be deliberate in a bringing order out of chaos way.
This assumes (without proposition (assuming that it’s not proposed ahead of e, I’ve only read this far)) that the universe before creation was chaotic. Are you defining chaotic as nothingness? If not can you clarify with an axiom or two? How did God relate to the ‘chaoticness’?
Am I taking this too seriously?
Much too seriously. I write Zoomtards a week in advance. I had 35 minutes to write five of the last six on Sunday afternoon post-sermonising.
But! Your comments make writing next week’s much easier.
Ha ha. This made me laugh. You’re a nerd.
And your sign off is awesome.
Yeah, it is pretty nerdy.
.
Nerdy and fully of logical holes.
And I got the sign off by looking up “Matt Turkington” in the Oxford English Dictionary.
ah ha ha ha.
That’s going to make me laugh all day.
His integrity is pretty hot, though.