You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why is Hamza Tzortzis wrong? The attributes of god.
There are other ways a theologian could put this, but the one you mention is my favorite because of its absurdity. If god is affecting equally all times, he can't switch on and off, which leads us to two conclusions:
- There's no reciprocity between him and the universe - no prayer answered, no miracle done.
- Better still, if he's permanent creation, then he could not have not created the universe. His existence would be necessarily tied to the creation of the universe, and thus the universe would be as much an absolute as himself. He would not be all that transcendent, then, would he?
1- well they'd say that in gods perspective all prayers are done at once and he listens and answers all at once, not making any sense to ask if he answers first or if people pray first.
2- The second point is very interesting. If the creation is absolutely necessary, and this follows from the allegation that god is out of time, than there is a necessary relation of 1 to 1 between God and the creation. If two objects have such a relation (necessary and exclusive) than they are the same object. Could we than reach the conclusion that god is the creation? Moreover, if god is immutable, than he is not all mighty and vice versa.
Yes, the first point is a rather silly thing, but all the endeavor of using reason to deduce god is silly at best. If god actually acts within time, he's by definition in time as a cause. His own perception of time is no more relevant than a mere point of view. Not only this idea precludes a relationship with men (because there is no reciprocity), it also leads to the deterministic fate thing/problem Presbyterians call upon themselves. Well, I'll leave it aside because the whole issue is senseless.
Now, the second issue is a tad more interesting. I reach the conclusion that a reasoned god would either: A) be inside the universe, B) be the universe, and thus not a god, or C) is transcendent, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe (how many of those can we postulate?). This argument is a little more interesting because of its heterodoxy but let's admit its just as senseless.