How can it be?!

[Ebor]

First, forgive me if I've posted this in the worng place but this seemed like a good spot to post this:

This morning, after my Intro to Philosophy class, I was reading though my assigned homework on the Monotheistic view of God. I had to read through several characteristics of God and this one didn't make sense:

"God is creator- df [definition] God creates all that exists but himself. Unlike artists or craftsmen, God created his materials from nothing existing in space and time. He may use parts of himself."

The last part, "...He may use parts of himself" Just didn't make sense. If God is infinite, then wouldn't He not consist of parts? Because if he did consist of parts, then God wouldn't be infinite (because you could always add one more part).

I haven't had a chance to talk to my PHL. professor yet so I don't have a clue if I'm even on the right track or if my argument is even structered right.

[corgan]

I believe somewhere in the Bible it speaks about God and how he created us in his own image, if he was infinite, then we would probably be infinite too, right? Ugh, now I'm getting a bit confused... To sum it all up, I believe God can most certainly create something from nothing like he did with the universe. So, if God was infinite and he created us in his own image, wouldn't that mean that we too are infinite and at anytime new parts could be added to us too?

... Whew, good guestion, you've got me stumped lol

[dizzle]

Hello Ebor - we will have one of more philosophically minded members or staff take this on. It does appear that you are correct - and perhaps the instructor is speaking of a very different kind of monotheistic God than the one in the Bible which traditionally have been confessed as not consisting of "parts" - it almost seems like you teacher was bordering on panantheism (click here (http://www.whiterobedmonks.org/phil/philgod.html#23000) for a short definition on panantheism)- I make no claim as to the orthodoxy of that site in general or not as I have not reviewed a great deal of it, but it seems like it could be very helpful to you in defining terms as it pertains to faith and philosophy.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

First, forgive me if I've posted this in the worng place but this seemed like a good spot to post this:

This morning, after my Intro to Philosophy class, I was reading though my assigned homework on the Monotheistic view of God. I had to read through several characteristics of God and this one didn't make sense:

"God is creator- df [definition] God creates all that exists but himself. Unlike artists or craftsmen, God created his materials from nothing existing in space and time. He may use parts of himself."

The last part, "...He may use parts of himself" Just didn't make sense. If God is infinite, then wouldn't He not consist of parts? Because if he did consist of parts, then God wouldn't be infinite (because you could always add one more part).

I haven't had a chance to talk to my PHL. professor yet so I don't have a clue if I'm even on the right track or if my argument is even structered right.

Hi Ebor! You've asked a good question! Let's look at the answer!

One of the doctrines of Christianity is the simplicity of God. This doesn't mean that God is simple to understand now! It means that God is not composed of parts. After all, if God was made of parts, then God could be taken apart. If God was taken apart, then he could decompose, if he could decompose, then he could cease to exist.

This kind of thought really angers me when I see people talking about parts of the Trinity. It's as if they think each person is 33.3% God. Let's use a human analogy. If you and I and DDW were all in a room, each one of us would possess human nature fully. (No comments from the peanut gallery as to whether ApologiaNick counts as human or not! lol)

Now then, is human nature divided because each of us is fully human? No. That would be like saying whenever a baby is born, we all become less human, and when someone dies, we all become more human.

Let's put it simply. God has no parts. God does have attributes. These attributes all work together perfectly though so that God is complete within the Triunity of himself.

Hope this helps!

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I believe somewhere in the Bible it speaks about God and how he created us in his own image, if he was infinite, then we would probably be infinite too, right? Ugh, now I'm getting a bit confused... To sum it all up, I believe God can most certainly create something from nothing like he did with the universe. So, if God was infinite and he created us in his own image, wouldn't that mean that we too are infinite and at anytime new parts could be added to us too?

... Whew, good guestion, you've got me stumped lol

Hi Corgan! Good question! It seems though that if we can get past the first hurdle, the whole solution comes.

The word for image is likeness. Note that. It doesn't mean "Carbon copy." We are made in his image in that we have many of the traits that he has.

We have power. He is omnipotent.
We have knowledge. He is omniscient.
We are loving. He is omnibenevolent.
We are relational. He is relational in the Trinity.
We are personal. He is personal.

I'd even take this further. I think the man being the head in the biblical view reflects the majesty of God while the woman reflects the beauty of God. Now women, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are to be a slave to your husbands. In fact, what I usually say is that if a man is the king of his castle, then his lady gets treated like a queen.

So Corgan, we are made like God. We are not made a copy of God. Only one fully bears the image of the attributes of God, and that's Christ. Hebrews 1:3 makes this clear.

Hope this helps!

[Ebor]

Hi Ebor! You've asked a good question! Let's look at the answer!

One of the doctrines of Christianity is the simplicity of God. This doesn't mean that God is simple to understand now! It means that God is not composed of parts. After all, if God was made of parts, then God could be taken apart. If God was taken apart, then he could decompose, if he could decompose, then he could cease to exist.

This kind of thought really angers me when I see people talking about parts of the Trinity. It's as if they think each person is 33.3% God. Let's use a human analogy. If you and I and DDW were all in a room, each one of us would possess human nature fully. (No comments from the peanut gallery as to whether ApologiaNick counts as human or not! lol)

Now then, is human nature divided because each of us is fully human? No. That would be like saying whenever a baby is born, we all become less human, and when someone dies, we all become more human.

Let's put it simply. God has no parts. God does have attributes. These attributes all work together perfectly though so that God is complete within the Triunity of himself.

Hope this helps!

I think I might understand what your saying. So since God can not have parts (since parts would imply an end, or death, to an infinite being[contradiction]), would that mean that he is just a whole, in the sense that he is complete?

Also, I'm looking through some more definitions of God in my homework and I found this:

"God is Sprit- df [definition] God is not corporeal (have a body). God is like an infinite mind or sprit with intelligence, will, and feeling. Other spritual things aseem to exist. How much does a thought weigh? How many inches long is Tuesday? What color is six? What body does your body have?"

This definition seems to be at odds with the "God is creator" definition because it seems to say that not only does God not have a body (parts) but clearly states that He is an infinite spritual being (no parts).

I'm I taking the right aproach in looking at this issue?

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I think I might understand what your saying. So since God can not have parts (since parts would imply an end, or death, to an infinite being[contradiction]), would that mean that he is just a whole, in the sense that he is complete?

THe Jewish idea of holiness had three component. Pure, separate, and complete. God fit all three. He lacks nothing.

Also, I'm looking through some more definitions of God in my homework and I found this:

"God is Sprit- df [definition] God is not corporeal (have a body). God is like an infinite mind or sprit with intelligence, will, and feeling. Other spritual things aseem to exist. How much does a thought weigh? How many inches long is Tuesday? What color is six? What body does your body have?"

This definition seems to be at odds with the "God is creator" definition because it seems to say that not only does God not have a body (parts) but clearly states that He is an infinite spritual being (no parts).

I would say that being an infinite spiritual being has no contradiction to being a creator. Having feeling is something I'd hesitate to say of God. I'd recommend getting a good systematic theology or maybe looking at church catechisms and confessions for what they meant by "God."