quote:

---

It is true that the divine/human relationship was one that God had not experienced before, but (and here’s the point I think Doc is making) the LOVE involved in that divine/human relationship IS something God HAD experienced before (for all eternity in fact). Love IS love, whether it’s limited to God’s own triune experience (whatever that is) or whether it flows out from that to create us. When we love God, God is experiencing the SAME THING in kind, that is, in terms of love, that God has eternally experienced. So in an important sense relating lovingly to a finite world is NOT new. At that point where it matters, namely, being and expressing love, the same thing is going on. So yes, God by nature IS and EXPRESSES love, but God does not begin doing something NEW in kind in terms of being and expressing love when he creates us for loving relationship. In terms of being and expressing love, creating us is just more of the SAME thing. Creating us “adds” something to God's experience to be sure, but that something is not something an omnibenevolent God would be by nature incapable of avoiding by choosing not to create in the first place. And this may be why God was free to NOT create us, for in terms of being and expressing love, God’s not creating us doesn’t leave his experience of love any less full or complete, nor does it add to his experience a dimension of loving which he did not already know. This would dovetail with our being created in God’s image. When we love him, we are being godlike, we’re doing what God has always been doing. He’s totally familiar with it.

---

Hey, hey, hey! I GOT IT! I GOT IT! I GOT IT!!!! Hang on to yer hats, true believers!!


The Perfect Friggin Analogy: The Sierpinski Triangle Fractal!


A mental image that I just got of this would be of a fractal. Think about the Sierpinski Triangle:



Basically the same image is reproduced on a smaller scale...and so on and on. This occurs infinitely. So, if you were to ask how many triangle shapes are in this thing, you'd pretty much have to say an infinite amount. So, let's say that you were to place a triangle OUTSIDE of the Sierpinski Triangle. Would this add to how many triangles there are as a whole? Nope. Because there are an infinite amount within the Sierpinski Triangle. Moreover, the one triangle outside of the Sierpinski Triangle could be seen as merely an EXPRESSION of what goes on INSIDE the triangle infinitely.


Now, check this out...

Let's make the triangle sentient. If the Sierpinski's disposition were to experience triangleness as much as possible, then obviously NO triangles would be needed outside of the Sierpinski Triangle to do this. Any triangles that the S. Triangle "created" outside of itself would NOT be enhancing it's disposition at all and would thereby not be NECESSARY to it. Any outside triangle could be whimsically created.

HOWEVER...

If the S. Triangle's disposition were to EXPRESS its triangleness and seek REFLECTION of its own triangleness back to the S. Triangle, could it do so WITHOUT attempting to make at least ONE triangle outside of itself??? Hmmm...

HECK, NO!!!

Nother question:
The S. Triangle is evaluating possible reality states. It turns out that that there are mutually exclusive states. One is where EXPRESSION and REFLECTION of triangleness is possible (meaning at least one triangle is outside the S. Triangle) and one is where both are not possible (meaning there is NO triangle outside the S. Triangle) Because of it's disposition towards expression and seeking reflection, the S. Triangle values the former possible reality GREATER THAN the latter. Given what has been said above, is it likely that the S. Triangle would NOT create a triangle outside of itself??

HECK, NO!!!


Now, I know all of you are smart enough to tie what I'm saying together, but just so there is absolute NO mistake...


Let it be that each triangle is a LOVE EXPERIENCE. The Sierpinski Triangle would be God. Each triangle within the S. Triangle would be a felt love experience within Godself. And that the triangle outside the S. Triangle would be God's experience of love in creation. We could see that God's experience of love would NOT be increased, for the experience of love WITHIN God is infinite. (I would definitely look at this as being unsurpassably intense). So, any love experience outside of Godself would not increase the intensely felt experience. What this means is that if God's disposition only dealt with maximizing felt love experiences, Creation would be negligible...AND A POINT OF INDIFFERENCE! (What I've been saying ALLLLLL along!!!) There would be no real reason for God to even WANT to create. The decision for God to create would be one of pure whimsy.

But Doc posits that God's disposition wishes to EXPRESS love and see it REFLECTED back to Godself. This provides the INTENTIONALITY behing Creation for Doc. Cool. Please remember that God FOLLOWS God's disposition! But is it possible for God to do this WITHOUT God creating a being OUTSIDE of God who can provide an external love experience. NOPE! There are two mutually exclusive states of reality, one where expression and reflection of love is POSSIBLE...and one where both are not. If God, via God's disposition, were to PREFER the former state to the latter state valuewise, is it likely that God would NEVER have created an open reality.

NO WAY, JOSE!!!


The bottom line: If this analogy works, we have a more visual way to understand what I'm saying. Just like that sentient S. Triangle, given a certain disposition, would NOT be free to NOT create a triangle outside of itself...God, given a certain disposition, would NOT be free to NOT create a LOVE CONDUCIVE creation (an OPEN one!) outside of Godself.

I am a friggin GENIUS...and I rest my case.

See ya in Minnesota,


PS: More, if we say that love ALWAYS value seeks to eventually 1) express itself and 2) experience RETURNED love, doesn't that make this whole thing a bit stronger?
"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Edited by - MephEternal on 05/25/2003 09:49:14 AM

quote:

---

Correct. BUT…seeking reflection of its own triangleness back to itself is NOT essential to triangleness. A triangle can BE a triangle without seeking this. The S. triangle is no less a triangle without this reflection. So this doesn’t help us in our problem. You are arguing that God’s love is not omnibenevolent love without this reflection. You’re arguing for a necessary God-world relationship based on God’s essence as love. But your analogy does not argue for a necessary S. Triangle-created triangle relationship based on the essence of “triangleness.” There’s nothing about the essence of a “triangle” that requires other triangles, even if the triangle is sentient one. In other words, the “disposition towards expression and reflection” which you posit in the case of the S. Triangle fails as an analogy because this disposition is NOT essential to triangleness. You “give” the S. Triangle a certain disposition and then argue from THAT disposition for the necessity of creating triangles, but you never demonstrate how this disposition is essential to “triangleness.”

---

I see the issue now. What I hear you saying that I am arguing is that LOVE ITSELF demands Creation...that God's love in any wise cannot truly be called "love" UNLESS Creation exists. Thus for the analogy you concentrate on triangleness as the key factor. And for the analogy, triangleness does in and of itself demand the creation of more triangles.

First of all, I'm not really arguing what you think I am. I never have been. I am arguing that, given ALL of the ideas that we have heretofore discussed about God's omnibenevolence, infinite intelligence, essential existence, disposition, and whatnot, Creation is a necessary consequent of God's existence. Yes, I have touched on essential love. But I've never based the whole ARGUMENT on this, NOR just on omnbenevolence alone. In other words, I've never based a necessary Creation on the nature of what love is ALONE. It's always had a context.

I wondered where you got that.


So...


Let's pare it down and keep it simple: Love ascribes infinite worth to another by deferrence. (Doc's thing!)

Let's say this is what we believe the ESSENCE of love to be. And let's say that this forms the CORE of what we would call a LOVE EXPERIENCE (Hint, hint!). Now, this IN and OF ITSELF, would not end up necessitating a Creation, when you worked everything out. Cool. God could ALWAYS experience the essence of love within Godself.

[Digression: Let the LINES of each triangle be the ESSENCE that form the building blocks of the LOVE experience. Why not?]

But is there any type of disposition within God that DEALS WITH love? Doc seemed to think so. And so do I. God doesn't ONLY always ascribe infinite worth to another by deferrence. (That would be God's omnibenevolence) That's not the only facet of God's essential existence, just like God is NOT JUST omnibenevolent! God ALSO always desires to maximize, express, and experience love in all facets. (Isn't this RIGHT, Doc????)

Do you see now, Tom? You have to put everything together.

NOW, it works to you, right???




PS: This may help. If God's disposition were ONLY to always ascribe infinite worth to another by deferrence, then no non-God beings would be necessary. But if God's disposition including the MAXIMIZATION, EXPRESSION, and VARIED EXPERIENCE of ascribing infinite worth to another by deferrence, then non-God being ARE necessary.

Edited by - MephEternal on 05/25/2003 12:35:21 PM