• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Fundamental Philosophical Identity of God.

Status
Not open for further replies.

37818

Well-Known Member
The traditional arguments for the "existence" for God effectively deny God's fundamental identity.

Uncaused existence is the fundamental identity of God. God being the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident.

God is the uncaused existence. To deny God is to deny that, God is God, and is irrational. It is tantamount to saying there is no existence. God is the uncaused existence in which anything that exists must exist in. God being omnipresent.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The traditional arguments for the "existence" for God effectively deny God's fundamental identity.

Uncaused existence is the fundamental identity of God. God being the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident.

God is the uncaused existence. To deny God is to deny that, God is God, and is irrational. It is tantamount to saying there is no existence. God is the uncaused existence in which anything that exists must e
xist in. God being omnipresent.

God is love.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
God is a metaphor for love and light (truth). 1 John 4:16. 1 John 4:7-8. 1 John 1:5. God being a Spirit (John 4:24).
There is another side - reflected by the two covenants:

God is Holy (OT)
God is Love (NT)
 

37818

Well-Known Member
There is another side - reflected by the two covenants:

God is Holy (OT)
God is Love (NT)
Both are found in the given special revelation given to man.

God being philosophically infinite good from which His holiness comes as well as what constitues love given in the special revelation He gave to man. First under the Law (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5:43-45) then under the commands of grace, John 13:34-35; 1 John 3:23.
 

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
God’s Law is the Administration of Condemnation and Death ON PEOPLE WHO DON’T “BELIEVE”.

Adapted from Gill:

ALL have Sinned,
and are ALL ARE Under
THE POWER of Sin.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS
ARE “CHILDREN of WRATH”,

Romans 1:18;
“For the Wrath of God
is Revealed from Heaven
against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men,
who hold the truth
in unrighteousness”;


Ephesians 2:3;
“Among whom also we all
had our behavior
in times past
in the lusts of our flesh,
fulfilling the desires of the flesh
and of the mind;
and were by nature
the children of wrath,
even as others.”


However, there are some particularly individuals described,
on whom this Wrath of God Comes,

and they are called
“children of disobedience”,

in Ephesians 5:5, 6;

“For this you know,
that no whoremonger,
nor unclean person,
nor covetous man,
who is an idolater,
has any inheritance
in the kingdom of Christ
and of God.

Let no man deceive you
with vain words:
for because of these things
Comes the Wrath of God
upon
the children of disobedience.”
*

These individual human beings
who are spoken of, by God,
as the “children of disobedience”,
consist of any naturally born souls of mankind who are disobedient to the light of nature, rebel against the light of nature revealed to them
and conclude that there is truth in unrighteousness,

And ARE THEY who are also disobedient
to the Law of God, break it,
and are convicted by It, as transgressors.

These individual “children of disobedience”,
are THE ONES whom God’s Law Pronounces Guilty.


God’s Law, then,
is the Administration of Condemnation
and Death to them.

These are individual human beings
who are disobedient to the Gospel of Christ,
they do not obey The truth,
but they DO Obey unrighteousness,
and they are slaves to their sinful lusts and pleasures.


On these “children of disobedience”
comes Indignation and Wrath,
Tribulation and Anguish;
even on every soul of man that does evil,

& as in 2 Thessalonians 1:8;

“In flaming fire taking vengeance
on them that know not God,
and that obey not the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ”
*

And in Romans 2:8, 9;

“but to those who
are selfishly ambitious
and do not obey the truth,
but obey unrighteousness,
wrath and indignation.

There will be
tribulation and distress
for every soul of man
who does evil,
of the Jew first
and also of the Greek.”
*

These people DON’T BELIEVE.
And they are represented as unbelievers,

IN THE BIBLE:

“He that
believes not the Son,
will not see Life;
but the Wrath of God
Abides on him”:
 

37818

Well-Known Member
OK, I’ll bite. You used the phrase "effectively deny.” How so?
For one thing, uncaused existence needs no God. Secondly, all the traditional arguments are made to justify God's existing. In all those arguments for God's existence, existence needs no proof, God does. Thirdly, self evident truths only need to exist without proof, therefore being self evident. So the argument goes, self evident truths do not need any God to exist, they exist. So there is no need for God. God needing some kind of proof for existence.

1. All genuine Christian's know God. One cannot honestly deny someone one knows.

2. God's Hebrew identity. Genesis 1:1. Exodus 3:14-15. Exodus 20:2. Proverbs 21:30. . . . . יְהוָ֞ה . . . "Self Existent."

3. Everyone's very existence is in God being omnipresent, ". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our [existence] being; . . ." -- Acts of the Apostles 17:28.
 
Last edited:

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
For one thing, uncaused existence needs no God. Secondly, all the traditional arguments are made to justify God's existing. In all those arguments for God's existence, existence needs no proof, God does. Thirdly, self evident truths only need to exist without proof, therefore being self evident. So the argument goes, self evident truths do not need any God to exist, they exist. So there is no need for God. God needing some kind of proof for existence.

1. All genuine Christian's know God. One cannot honestly deny someone one knows.

2. God's Hebrew identiy. Genesis 1:1. Exodus 3:14-15. Exodus 20:2. Proverbs 21:30. . . . . יְהוָ֞ה . . . "Self Existent."

3. Everyone's very existence is in God being omnipresent, ". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our [existence] being; . . ." -- Acts of the Apostles 17:28.
You said, “Uncaused existence needs no God,” as if being critical, but without real explanation. And earlier you had said, “God is the uncaused existence.” I’m not really tracking you here. Sounds like trying to both have and eat your cake.

The argument I’m familiar with speaks of an uncaused cause, not uncaused existence. But in any case, no one starts a common ground argument with God. You are basically starting your argument in the middle or even far afield. That only works with those already there.

But ultimately, it seems you are confusing what is needed here. God needs no proof to exist. However, to believe in God, one needs reasonable evidence of existence and character. These are not at all the same.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
You said, “Uncaused existence needs no God,” as if being critical, but without real explanation. And earlier you had said, “God is the uncaused existence.” I’m not really tracking you here. Sounds like trying to both have and eat your cake.
God has no God. Isaiah 44:6.
The argument I’m familiar with speaks of an uncaused cause, not uncaused existence. But in any case, no one starts a common ground argument with God. You are basically starting your argument in the middle or even far afield. That only works with those already there.
An uncaused cause needs an uncaused existence to both be uncaused and to exist. Furthermore an uncaused cause is two things. To be uncaused is to be eternal, but in order to be a cause, is to be temporal. By reason all caused things are temporal. It is a necessary seconded entity. And as such, is the sole cause of all caused things. Being uncaused existence with uncaused existence being also the sole temporal cause of all caused things. This is the philosophical identity of the second person being that one and the same God. (John 1:1-3, being both God and "with" God.)
But ultimately, it seems you are confusing what is needed here. God needs no proof to exist. However, to believe in God, one needs reasonable evidence of existence and character. These are not at all the same.
God is the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident. God is the uncaused existence. All other existence is contgent on that uncaused Existence and His uncaused Cause. They being two of the essential three are the One uncaused Existence. (Proverbs 21:30)
 

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
God has no God. Isaiah 44:6.
But God being God, his own uncaused existence needs him. They are inseparable. Your statements are at best incomplete, but as presented contradict, which can cause all manner of confusion.
An uncaused cause needs an uncaused existence to both be uncaused and to exist. Furthermore an uncaused cause is two things. To be uncaused is to be eternal, but in order to be a cause, is to be temporal. By reason all caused things are temporal. It is a necessary seconded entity. And as such, is the sole cause of all caused things. Being uncaused existence with uncaused existence being also the sole temporal cause of all caused things. This is the philosophical identity of the second person being that one and the same God. (John 1:1-3, being both God and "with" God.)
So you are saying God is both eternal and temporal. Sounds like heresy. Perhaps you meant to say God can act temporally? There is a difference, and it's enormous.
God is the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident. God is the uncaused existence. All other existence is contgent on that uncaused Existence and His uncaused Cause. They being two of the essential three are the One uncaused Existence. (Proverbs 21:30)
Again, that is confusing who God is in relation to who we are and how we can know anything of God. I believe in God, but his existence is not contingent on me or my belief. However, my belief in him is contingent on my existence, even though my existence is contingent on him. I realize my own existence before realizing God's and then believing in him. But that is the order of belief, not existence, which again are two entirely different things.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
But God being God, his own uncaused existence needs him.
God needs Himself. He is the uncaused Existence.
So you are saying God is both eternal and temporal. Sounds like heresy.
A cause is temporal and is a source of change. So truth is heresy? God is the uncaused Existence and eternal and never changed.

Caused things are temporal.

An uncaused Cause is two things. Both eternal and temporal.

Now who is both God and with God? Who is the sole cause of all caused things? Who changed to become man? God did not change. Be careful here. John 1:1; * John 1:2; John 1:3; * John 1:14; John 1:9; Hebrews 1:3; John 1:10.

Proverbs 30:4.
 
Last edited:

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
God needs Himself. He is the uncaused Existence.
Precisely, meaning the statement "uncaused existence needs no God" is incorrect, thus should not have been made. Again, they are inseparable.

A cause is temporal and is a source of change. So truth is heresy? God is the uncaused Existence and eternal and never changed.
Assertion without proof does not make it true. On what grounds is the uncaused cause temporal? Acting temporally and being temporal are two entirely different things. Are you claiming God must himself change when he enacts changes? That would seem to contradict other statements you are making. Explain what you mean.

You have not yet established that your arguments can be made as you seem to think, or in the order you seem to want to be critical of traditional argument. Have you understood the basic points I made earlier about that?
 

37818

Well-Known Member
ning the statement "uncaused existence needs no God" is incorrect, thus shou
No. God needs no God is correct.

You are effectively denying God to be the uncaused existence which needs no God.
Assertion without proof does not make it true.
What constutes a proof? What does not exist is not true.
On what grounds is the uncaused cause temporal?
A cause that is not temporal does not exist.
Acting temporally and being temporal are two entirely different things.
No. Acting temporally is temporal or it is not an act. All acts are temporal.
Are you claiming God must himself change when he enacts changes?
Actually I am claiming there must be an entity with God (uncaused existence) which was always temporal.


And infinite series of causes with no first cause would have be as an uncaused series, being an uncaused cause. Which is required in order for there to be caused things with uncaused existence in any cause.

So either the uncaused existence is God or there is no God. (God is not God).

Now here is the question I have for you. If you where to explain to someone how to know God, what would you explain?

You have not yet established that your arguments can be made as you seem to think, or in the order you seem to want to be critical of traditional argument. Have you understood the basic points I made earlier about that?
Traditional arguments are not Biblblical. Existence does not need proof in those arguments, God does. The lost do not know God.

Again, my question I have for you. If you where to explain to someone how to know God, what would you explain?
 
Last edited:

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
No. God needs no God is correct.

You are effectively denying God to be the uncaused existence which needs no God.
What constutes a proof? What does not exist is not true.

A cause that is not temporal does not exist.

No. Acting temporally is temporal or it is not an act. All acts are temporal.

Actually I am claiming there must be an entity with God (uncaused existence) which was always temporal.


And infinite series of causes with no first cause would have be as an uncaused series, being an uncaused cause. Which is required in order for there to be caused things with uncaused existence in any cause.

So either the uncaused existence is God or there is no God. (God is not God).

Now here is the question I have for you. If you where to explain to someone how to know God, what would you explain?


Traditional arguments are not Biblblical. Existence does not need proof in those arguments, God does. The lost do not know God.

Again, my question I have for you. If you where to explain to someone how to know God, what would you explain?
Perhaps I'm beginning to understand what you are trying to do here, but can see no reason why someone unconvinced of the idea of God would buy into it at all, much less want to know how to know him. But if you have success with it, then please feel free. And who knows, perhaps I will encounter someone half convinced where such ideas might help.

However, I still must reject your criticisms of traditional arguments, which do not deny God at all, but rather point directly to him. They are made to reason with those who deny him. Again, there is a big difference.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
However, I still must reject your criticisms of traditional arguments, which do not deny God at all, but rather point directly to him. They are made to reason with those who deny him. Again, there is a big difference.
A number of things here. Existence needs no proof. None of the traditional arguments are Biblical. Yes, the philosophical argument is not being said to be Biblical.

Uncaused Existence does not need anything. Nothingness never was, else it would not be nothingness. So there was always existence. Always existence would be uncaused existence.
Existencd and cause are two different things. An uncaused cause is contingent upon uncaused existence in order to be uncaused. All causes are temporal, or it could never be a cause.

(more later)
 
Last edited:

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
A number of things here. Existence needs no proof. None of the traditional arguments are Biblical. Yes, the philosophical argument is not being said to be Biblical. Uncaused Existence does not need anything. Nothingness never was, else it would not be nothingness. So there was always existence. Always existence would be uncaused existence. Existencd and cause are two different things. An uncaused cause is contingent upon uncaused existence in order to be uncaused. All causes are temporal, or it could never be a cause.
Do you believe God is transcendent, unbound by creation? Do you consider time a dimension, or something else entirely? Do you hold that time is created, or is time eternal, uncreated?
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Do you believe God is transcendent, unbound by creation?
God is not merely transcendent but omnipresent.

Do you consider time a dimension, or something else entirely?
Space-time is a caused existence, it is the existence as we experience existence.

Do you hold that time is created, or is time eternal, uncreated?
Time is of the space-time is understood to be created time. It is understood to have a beginning (Genesis 1:1).

There is eternity, Psalms 90:2, ". . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. . . ."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top