DeletedUser8396
Guest
What do you love? Think of one thing that you love. Don’t proceed until you have that one person or thing fixed in your mind.
Alright, now let us say we take that thing or person away. It never existed in any point in time. You have no perceptions of this person or thing. Do you still love it? Now that the object is not in existence, can you love it? Of course not! Your love must have an object to focus upon. Once that object is removed entirely, the love becomes impossible to exist.
Allow me to stress this: with no object to love, love cannot exist.
Therefore, we can adequately claim that objects or people must have existed before or in the same timeline as love itself for if love existed prior to objects/people, love’s existence would be a paradox. However, if objects existed before love, the love could potentially be created between objects (such as how love comes about with a relationship). Therefore objects/people supersede love in terms of existence as objects/people may precede love but love not precede objects.
Now, let me take a glance at 1 John 4:8: He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.
“God is love.”
The verb used in the Greek translation of 1 John 4:7-8 is “agape”. The common interpretation of “agape” love is one which is self-sacrificing. Therefore, it would be moderately ok to say “God is self-sacrifice(ing)” instead. In other words, God is a genuine care for another thing to the extent of sacrificing Himself for it. This is clearly seen throughout the main focus point of scripture: Jesus and the cross. However, that is not our point yet precisely.
Now that we have defined what the phrase “God is love” means to us (self-sacrifice), we may now discuss further:
God therefore is interchangeable with love. For if God is love, but has no object in which to focus His love, He cannot be love. He exists in the same timeline as other objects/people, He must then either create something to love in order to be love, He – in His Omniscience – knew we would exist and loved that, God loved Himself, the eternal act of the cross is a cause He could love, love existed alongside God, or He does not exist. One of these are possible, so let us discuss them:
1. He exists in the same timeline as other objects/people
This one should be easily thrown out. Since God is eternal, He must pre-exist everything. If something were to exist in the same timeframe as God, they would be just as eternal as Him which would remove God’s authority over time. If the eternally existing thing were an object, the object would not have a Creator by being eternal, meaning that God would not have authority over it. If the eternally existing thing were sentient, the being would have just as much of a right over time as God, as well as God would have no authority over the sentient being as He did not create it. Therefore, God is the only being to exist eternally – the first option is thrown out.
2. He must then either create something to love in order to be love
This one is a bit trickier. Since we now know that God is the only eternal being with no origin, this then means that we must be created by Him. However, before we (or any other thing) were created, God would still be required to be love as He does not change (James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.")
This then means that God must be love even before things existed in order to remain consistent, which is part of His nature as stated in the Bible. But we have shown love to exist without an object to be contradictory – the second option is thrown out.
3. He – in His Omniscience – knew we would exist and loved that.
A splendid objection indeed. However, this predicates itself on the false claim that God knew we would exist before we were created. In His omniscience, certainly one would think He would know everything, but not precisely:
Allow me to make some stipulations:
-God is incapable of error.
-God knows all things, past, present, future.
-God is capable of all things that are logically possible (He can’t create a four-sided triangle, but could create a Pegasus)
Now, allow me to propose the question: Does God know what actions He Himself will perform?
If you answer yes:
You have provided the “common sense” approach. If He knows all things, He must know His own actions, right? Not necessarily.
Imagine you were infallible, omniscient and omnipotent. Tomorrow, you know you will eat pizza. However, when tomorrow comes, you desire to change your mind and eat tacos. Can you do this? Not under your paradigm. You would be required to prove your own omniscience wrong in order to exercise your omnipotence. Since you are infallible, you cannot change your mind. If you must obey your own omniscience, are you truly omnipotent? Certainly not – you cannot even control your own choices under this idea.
So, by saying God does know His own choices, we either must destroy His infallibility or His omnipotence. Since I prefer to do neither, I propose the third option:
God does not know His own actions in advance. He does, however, know precisely how anything other than Him will play out without His intervening. And, once He intervenes, He knows how the timeline would be altered.
Some small support: Sodom and Gomorrah. In God’s debate with Abraham, God changes the requirements several times He desires for the city’s destruction. If God knows that He will eventually choose to go with a lesser “holy people” requirement, but starts saying He will destroy it no matter what, does that not make God a liar if He knew what He would eventually do? I say yes. However, if God cannot know His future actions, He is exempt from lying. Also, in prayer when we request things, if God cannot change what He does, why bother praying? It can in no way change the outcome of things if God cannot will any different action. However, if God can then prayer is yet again useful for requests.
But something seems a bit off here. How could God know the proper time to send prophets, Jesus, etc? How would God know what to tell the prophets to predict?
Allow me to explain (slightly based on a small part of Molinism, kinda):
God is omniscient, as we have stated. Would He also know what any theoretical world could potentially become? And, in an infinite number of worlds, all consisting of God intervening at different points, would God not know when to act in order to achieve His desired outcome for a particular result? Indeed He would.
If He ever changes His mind, He has simply changed to one other of the infinite possible worlds.
Therefore, we have re-established God’s full omniscience – at least in regards to our world – through tampering with infinite worlds. This knowledge, however, ONLY comes into play after He creates the third party.
4. God loved Himself
Taking the “agape – self-sacrifice” definition, we can adequately say God cannot sacrifice Himself for Himself. It simply does not make any sense.
5. The eternal act of the cross is a cause He could love
This establishes a cause in which self-sacrifice can exist before our world, but the cause must be as eternal as God Himself in order to solve the issue. If the cause exists alongside God as long as God has existed, then the cause is not caused by God Himself and is therefore separate from God and becomes a universal idea in which all things must universally obey as a cause is not capable of making choices.
Allow me to explain that:
God is capable of making new causes, rules, morals, objects, etc. So long as these things do not precede God, God has sovereignty over them by causality. He can therefore demand certain things, change certain demands of other creations of His, and the like as His will is infinite and is capable of modifying Himself in His sentient nature.
A cause, if caused by itself (which is a contradiction in and of itself) cannot change itself as a cause is not sentient. The cause would, however, be just as universal but could not restrict its application to anything under the cause. As God created humanity, it would stand to reason humans would be exempt from obeying the cause’s universal applications whilst residing under God’s own sovereignty, but since the cause is used in humanity we would be obligated to obey the cause fully and could not will ourselves against it (as, if the Cause is self-caused, it supersedes our existence and thus has authority over us). This then means that we would all be forced into eternal self-sacrifice. As this is clearly not the case, the Cause cannot cause itself. Therefore, God caused the Cause, meaning He precedes it. This circles back to the original argument as God would have to exist eternally as a self-sacrificing love before the creation of the cause, but could not be love in that state as there would be nothing to be self-sacrificing for.
6. Love existed alongside God
This is almost ridiculous of an objection, but I’m certain it will be made countless times. Anyway:
The question itself is flawed. It proposes an answer to the problem that, in the answer itself, relies on the problem being solved. The love existing alongside God would still need an object. That Love could love God, if only it were sentient. Since the question itself tries to separate the two, we know that the separated love proposed by the question is not sentient as, if it were, this would be God as defined in 1 John 4:7-8.
7. He does not exist
If God must be love before things existed, and love cannot exist without an object in which to focus, God therefore does not exist.
Alright, now let us say we take that thing or person away. It never existed in any point in time. You have no perceptions of this person or thing. Do you still love it? Now that the object is not in existence, can you love it? Of course not! Your love must have an object to focus upon. Once that object is removed entirely, the love becomes impossible to exist.
Allow me to stress this: with no object to love, love cannot exist.
Therefore, we can adequately claim that objects or people must have existed before or in the same timeline as love itself for if love existed prior to objects/people, love’s existence would be a paradox. However, if objects existed before love, the love could potentially be created between objects (such as how love comes about with a relationship). Therefore objects/people supersede love in terms of existence as objects/people may precede love but love not precede objects.
Now, let me take a glance at 1 John 4:8: He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.
“God is love.”
The verb used in the Greek translation of 1 John 4:7-8 is “agape”. The common interpretation of “agape” love is one which is self-sacrificing. Therefore, it would be moderately ok to say “God is self-sacrifice(ing)” instead. In other words, God is a genuine care for another thing to the extent of sacrificing Himself for it. This is clearly seen throughout the main focus point of scripture: Jesus and the cross. However, that is not our point yet precisely.
Now that we have defined what the phrase “God is love” means to us (self-sacrifice), we may now discuss further:
God therefore is interchangeable with love. For if God is love, but has no object in which to focus His love, He cannot be love. He exists in the same timeline as other objects/people, He must then either create something to love in order to be love, He – in His Omniscience – knew we would exist and loved that, God loved Himself, the eternal act of the cross is a cause He could love, love existed alongside God, or He does not exist. One of these are possible, so let us discuss them:
1. He exists in the same timeline as other objects/people
This one should be easily thrown out. Since God is eternal, He must pre-exist everything. If something were to exist in the same timeframe as God, they would be just as eternal as Him which would remove God’s authority over time. If the eternally existing thing were an object, the object would not have a Creator by being eternal, meaning that God would not have authority over it. If the eternally existing thing were sentient, the being would have just as much of a right over time as God, as well as God would have no authority over the sentient being as He did not create it. Therefore, God is the only being to exist eternally – the first option is thrown out.
2. He must then either create something to love in order to be love
This one is a bit trickier. Since we now know that God is the only eternal being with no origin, this then means that we must be created by Him. However, before we (or any other thing) were created, God would still be required to be love as He does not change (James 1:17: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.")
This then means that God must be love even before things existed in order to remain consistent, which is part of His nature as stated in the Bible. But we have shown love to exist without an object to be contradictory – the second option is thrown out.
3. He – in His Omniscience – knew we would exist and loved that.
A splendid objection indeed. However, this predicates itself on the false claim that God knew we would exist before we were created. In His omniscience, certainly one would think He would know everything, but not precisely:
Allow me to make some stipulations:
-God is incapable of error.
-God knows all things, past, present, future.
-God is capable of all things that are logically possible (He can’t create a four-sided triangle, but could create a Pegasus)
Now, allow me to propose the question: Does God know what actions He Himself will perform?
If you answer yes:
You have provided the “common sense” approach. If He knows all things, He must know His own actions, right? Not necessarily.
Imagine you were infallible, omniscient and omnipotent. Tomorrow, you know you will eat pizza. However, when tomorrow comes, you desire to change your mind and eat tacos. Can you do this? Not under your paradigm. You would be required to prove your own omniscience wrong in order to exercise your omnipotence. Since you are infallible, you cannot change your mind. If you must obey your own omniscience, are you truly omnipotent? Certainly not – you cannot even control your own choices under this idea.
So, by saying God does know His own choices, we either must destroy His infallibility or His omnipotence. Since I prefer to do neither, I propose the third option:
God does not know His own actions in advance. He does, however, know precisely how anything other than Him will play out without His intervening. And, once He intervenes, He knows how the timeline would be altered.
Some small support: Sodom and Gomorrah. In God’s debate with Abraham, God changes the requirements several times He desires for the city’s destruction. If God knows that He will eventually choose to go with a lesser “holy people” requirement, but starts saying He will destroy it no matter what, does that not make God a liar if He knew what He would eventually do? I say yes. However, if God cannot know His future actions, He is exempt from lying. Also, in prayer when we request things, if God cannot change what He does, why bother praying? It can in no way change the outcome of things if God cannot will any different action. However, if God can then prayer is yet again useful for requests.
But something seems a bit off here. How could God know the proper time to send prophets, Jesus, etc? How would God know what to tell the prophets to predict?
Allow me to explain (slightly based on a small part of Molinism, kinda):
God is omniscient, as we have stated. Would He also know what any theoretical world could potentially become? And, in an infinite number of worlds, all consisting of God intervening at different points, would God not know when to act in order to achieve His desired outcome for a particular result? Indeed He would.
If He ever changes His mind, He has simply changed to one other of the infinite possible worlds.
Therefore, we have re-established God’s full omniscience – at least in regards to our world – through tampering with infinite worlds. This knowledge, however, ONLY comes into play after He creates the third party.
4. God loved Himself
Taking the “agape – self-sacrifice” definition, we can adequately say God cannot sacrifice Himself for Himself. It simply does not make any sense.
5. The eternal act of the cross is a cause He could love
This establishes a cause in which self-sacrifice can exist before our world, but the cause must be as eternal as God Himself in order to solve the issue. If the cause exists alongside God as long as God has existed, then the cause is not caused by God Himself and is therefore separate from God and becomes a universal idea in which all things must universally obey as a cause is not capable of making choices.
Allow me to explain that:
God is capable of making new causes, rules, morals, objects, etc. So long as these things do not precede God, God has sovereignty over them by causality. He can therefore demand certain things, change certain demands of other creations of His, and the like as His will is infinite and is capable of modifying Himself in His sentient nature.
A cause, if caused by itself (which is a contradiction in and of itself) cannot change itself as a cause is not sentient. The cause would, however, be just as universal but could not restrict its application to anything under the cause. As God created humanity, it would stand to reason humans would be exempt from obeying the cause’s universal applications whilst residing under God’s own sovereignty, but since the cause is used in humanity we would be obligated to obey the cause fully and could not will ourselves against it (as, if the Cause is self-caused, it supersedes our existence and thus has authority over us). This then means that we would all be forced into eternal self-sacrifice. As this is clearly not the case, the Cause cannot cause itself. Therefore, God caused the Cause, meaning He precedes it. This circles back to the original argument as God would have to exist eternally as a self-sacrificing love before the creation of the cause, but could not be love in that state as there would be nothing to be self-sacrificing for.
6. Love existed alongside God
This is almost ridiculous of an objection, but I’m certain it will be made countless times. Anyway:
The question itself is flawed. It proposes an answer to the problem that, in the answer itself, relies on the problem being solved. The love existing alongside God would still need an object. That Love could love God, if only it were sentient. Since the question itself tries to separate the two, we know that the separated love proposed by the question is not sentient as, if it were, this would be God as defined in 1 John 4:7-8.
7. He does not exist
If God must be love before things existed, and love cannot exist without an object in which to focus, God therefore does not exist.
Last edited by a moderator:
)