2 Questions

[POI]

1. Why did God create anything at all?
2. What arena/space/other did God dwell within or upon before he first had to create it?

[bjs1]

According to Christianity, God is spirit. He exists, and always has existed, outside of the physical universe. To return to the painter analogy, this universe is the painting. God is the painter, looking at his work of art from outside of the frame.

This response only pushes the unanswered question back one step. God still had to 'dwell or exist' somewhere. Where exactly did God dwell or exist before he created it?

We call the place where God dwells Heaven. However, an omnipresent being would dwell everywhere, both inside and outside of this universe.

[POI]

We call the place where God dwells Heaven. However, an omnipresent being would dwell everywhere, both inside and outside of this universe.

Where did God dwell before he created Heaven?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #60]

William made a good point prior, in that God=love, which also means love=God. You stated "Love is a concept that describes the actions of another being, while God is a being.". My Q's remains:

1) Can "immaterialism" exist without the necessity of "materialism"?
2) Does 'love and hate' actually exist outside a material brain?
3) Since we 'know' materialism exists, is it possible that materialism has always existed, in one form or another?

I think the answer may be related to your recent question:

Where did God dwell before he created Heaven?

My answers through my current understanding are:

1) This would depend on whether material has always existed or not. Re a proposed immaterial God, there is only what we might call mindfulness and is something we need not assume is immaterial.
2) Does anything exist outside of a material brain? For example, when studying NDE reports it is clear that the mind experiences these as if they were physical. Heaven and Hell ( and other realms) are experienced as if they were real, meaning "physically real".
Therefore IF the brain can produce such "hallucinations" with such attention to detail, what is to say that the physical universe one is experiencing, isn't also a brain hallucination?
And if it were, then what really is "the brain" and why does it represent itself as a fatty wrinkly phenomena in which the more it is explored, the more revealing it becomes re its complexity.
Yet is cannot clearly tell us what is "love" and what is "hate" - that we all agree...

3) Putting aside the idea that materialism itself isn't a grand "hallucination" of some universal mind (the universe itself representing the "brain"), it is possible that matter has always existed in one form or another, and for that matter - "mindfulness" also and useful as a means of creating such "reality" experiences to be had.

____________________________

I see no reason to discount the possibility that if material (even as a formless quantum field) has always existed, then so to has mindfulness - also in one form or another.

I draw the line at thinking mindfulness itself is "immaterial" but I do think various forms effect how mindfulness "operates". Love may indeed be at the top of the emotional food-chain, and just as hard to recognize as "God" - without some initiation occurring...


The rejection of immaterialism doesn’t preclude the possibility that:

1) The universe is a created entity.
2) The creator is a "mind," albeit one that exists materially or in some broader-order material framework.

By maintaining a materialist perspective, we can entertain the idea of a creator while grounding that creator-mind and those processes in material phenomena, avoiding the assumption of immateriality. This aligns with a naturalistic worldview that still allows for the awe and mystery of creation and existence.

[bjs1]

We call the place where God dwells Heaven. However, an omnipresent being would dwell everywhere, both inside and outside of this universe.

Where did God dwell before he created Heaven?

Since, as I wrote in my first post in this thread, God exists out side the physical universe - outside of time and space - the question "Where?" doesn't make sense.

[The Tanager]

We've had these exchanges before. The time to believe that something exists is after demonstration. Has "immaterial being(s)" actually ever been demonstrated anywhere, or, instead only asserted/inferred/postulated/hypothesized/other?

This seems to be the first point we need to discuss. What do you mean by “demonstrate”? Science involves inferences to the best explanation as well, so are you saying that scientific claims aren’t “demonstrated” anywhere?

[POI]

We've had these exchanges before. The time to believe that something exists is after demonstration. Has "immaterial being(s)" actually ever been demonstrated anywhere, or, instead only asserted/inferred/postulated/hypothesized/other?

This seems to be the first point we need to discuss. What do you mean by “demonstrate”? Science involves inferences to the best explanation as well, so are you saying that scientific claims aren’t “demonstrated” anywhere?

As a refresher... I am not allowed to merely infer blackholes, dark matter, or dark energy, as we have had no direct demonstrable experience(s). Likewise, you are then not allowed to merely infer "immaterial beings" unless you can provide demonstrable experience(s). Can "immaterial beings" actually be demonstrated, or merely inferred? If they can be demonstrated, would you mind doing so?

[POI]

Since, as I wrote in my first post in this thread, God exists out side the physical universe - outside of time and space - the question "Where?" doesn't make sense.

Okay...

1) How do we know matter, in some form or another, has not always existed in some capacity?
2) How might an asserted "immaterial being(s)' be able to flow between immaterial and material arena(s)?
3) How do we know such an asserted immaterial being has the ability to create materialism in the first place?
4) Was it necessary for this 'immaterial being' to create materialism in order to cohabitate with anything or anyone else besides himself?

[bjs1]

Since, as I wrote in my first post in this thread, God exists out side the physical universe - outside of time and space - the question "Where?" doesn't make sense.

Okay...

1) How do we know matter, in some form or another, has not always existed in some capacity?
2) How might an asserted "immaterial being(s)' be able to flow between immaterial and material arena(s)?
3) How do we know such an asserted immaterial being has the ability to create materialism in the first place?
4) Was it necessary for this 'immaterial being' to create materialism in order to cohabitate with anything or anyone else besides himself?

You seem to believe you have a point here, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what it is. Are you just pointing out that there is stuff we don’t know about God? If so, then I agree. That almost qualifies as a part of Christian doctrine. If you have a point beyond that, please explain your argument clearly.

[POI]

Since, as I wrote in my first post in this thread, God exists out side the physical universe - outside of time and space - the question "Where?" doesn't make sense.

Okay...

1) How do we know matter, in some form or another, has not always existed in some capacity?
2) How might an asserted "immaterial being(s)' be able to flow between immaterial and material arena(s)?
3) How do we know such an asserted immaterial being has the ability to create materialism in the first place?
4) Was it necessary for this 'immaterial being' to create materialism in order to cohabitate with anything or anyone else besides himself?

You seem to believe you have a point here, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what it is.

The objective here is to ultimately point out that Christians may very well be applying a double standard, by way of special pleading. We know materialism/naturalism is a thing. The assertion is that immaterialism is also a thing. Hence, 'immaterialism' would not require spatial relations. Well, can you actually demonstrate anything immaterial, (i.e.) an immaterial being? Maybe materialism is all there is....? Which would then mean, using basic logic, there is no need for an asserted God or any other immaterial being.

Are you just pointing out that there is stuff we don’t know about God?

No. I'm asking follow-up questions, based upon your prior response(s). Can you answer them please? This is, of course, after you can provide demonstration of this immaterialism to begin with...

If so, then I agree. That almost qualifies as a part of Christian doctrine.

Does this mean your position is based upon faith? If so, can't such faith be applied to alternative unfounded positions just the same? And if so, why apply such faith to your position, over anyone else's alternative faith-based position?

[The Tanager]

We've had these exchanges before. The time to believe that something exists is after demonstration. Has "immaterial being(s)" actually ever been demonstrated anywhere, or, instead only asserted/inferred/postulated/hypothesized/other?

This seems to be the first point we need to discuss. What do you mean by “demonstrate”? Science involves inferences to the best explanation as well, so are you saying that scientific claims aren’t “demonstrated” anywhere?

As a refresher... I am not allowed to merely infer blackholes, dark matter, or dark energy, as we have had no direct demonstrable experience(s). Likewise, you are then not allowed to merely infer "immaterial beings" unless you can provide demonstrable experience(s). Can "immaterial beings" actually be demonstrated, or merely inferred? If they can be demonstrated, would you mind doing so?

We might be talking past each other a bit here. An inference to the best explanation (also known as abduction) is a reasoning process where one chooses the hypothesis or theory that best explains a set of observations or evidence. When saying science involves inferences to the best explanation, I'm not just talking about blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, but evolutionary theory, astronomy, climate science, the existence of electrons, etc. Is this what you mean by having "direct demonstrable experience(s)"?