3 ms·

> Religious people who conceive of God as the creator, believing that the word 'creator' refers to the creation of the universe at some point in the past, are c

by jjcon 4y ago

> Religious people who conceive of God as the creator, believing that the word 'creator' refers to the creation of the universe at some point in the past, are completely misunderstanding the use of the word and need to do some more homework. Can you explain what you mean here - I couldn’t follow

gjsman-1000 4y ago
"misunderstanding the use of the word" Aka, I've used someone else's redefinition of the word away from the vernacular understanding, to redefine it to support my view of the world. See also "recession."
- jondeval 4y ago
  Not quite. Although I fully understand the feedback. There are 2 equally valid senses in which the word creator can be used. Both conform to standard definitions but each used in a different sense. I tried to add clarity in the response above. Thanks!
pronlover723 4y ago
I took it to mean "god is somewhere, you need to explain how that somewhere and god themselves came into being"
jondeval 4y ago
Sure. I'll try. There are two senses to understand the word creator. I'll illustrate both by analogies to the way 'we' create as people: (1) A violinist is creating the music that you are currently hearing. Here and now in the present. (2) A painter created a painting in the 19th century, and you can see the artifact on the wall in a museum. In the case of (1) the creator brings the song into being out of nothing. More or less, don't squabble over sound waves. :^). When the violinist stops playing, the music stops. Here and now in the present. In the case of (2) the painter finished the work 'at some point in time' and we can have all sorts of interesting conversations about when exactly the artifact was created. Did the painter really paint it in the way some book said that he did? Does the painter maintain any connection to the painting after it's finished? etc. You see, if the proper sense of the word creator is actually (1). Then all discussions about (2) are distractions. So, it's important to remember that, for example, knowledgeable Christians refer to God as the creator in the sense of (1). There may or may not be some interesting discussions to be had about whether God is a creator in the sense of (2) but they are conversations about secondary causes, and very much irrelevant to God's existence and the role as the primary cause.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > So, it's important to remember that, for example, knowledgeable Christians refer to God as the creator in the sense of (1) I am very curious why you think that - given that the Bible and all common teachings of it that I've ever seen very explicitly define God as the creator in the second sense (Genesis very clearly describes past events - not just Let there be light and so on, which could be taken as metaphors for every day dawning, but also Adam and even and all of their descendants, which are described and were understood throughout history as ancestors, not metaphors). The Jewish calendar is even numbered since the year of creation. Also, while I'm now atheistic, I received at least basic Eastern Orthodox education in school, and the very explicit notion there was that God was the creator of the universe; I also know modern Catholic teaching explicitly names God as the cause of the Big Bang itself, or whatever else science finds to be the mechanism by which the observable universe formed. Also, while many do accept the possibility of miracles, even some commonly recurring miracles (like the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ during Holy Communion during every Sunday Mass), the working of the natural world is accepted as ordained by God, but not personally directed by Him - this is quite explicit at least in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, where any direct intervention of God on Earth is seen as a miracle, usually related to a Saint. Note: I am not saying that there are no Christians that believe what you are saying, or that it somehow runs counter to Christianity. I am only saying that I don't think it is a common understanding of Christianity, even one limited to more literate/knowledgeable Christians; e.g. I don't think the Pope believes what you are saying.
  - skissane 4y ago
    What the GP is talking about, is the traditional distinction made in philosophy between in fieri and in esse causation. A causes B in fieri if A was necessary for B to begin to exist–but once B exists, it can continue to exist even if A ceases to exist. A causes B in esse if B can only exist as long as A continues to exist (and do whatever is needful to sustain B in existence.) You will not find this idea directly stated in the Bible anywhere – these terms were developed in mediaeval scholastic philosophy (although the concept arguably goes back further). Among Roman Catholics, it is certainly the standard view–indeed, I think it is actually an official dogma that God continuously sustains the universe in existence (creates it in esse), as opposed to the deist view that God created it in fieri but its continued existence no longer depends on him. Many Protestant philosophers invoke the same distinction. Philosophy of this kind is less popular in Eastern Orthodoxy (especially in recent times) – but when Orthodox thinkers have taken an interest in these kinds of philosophical topics, their views on them tend to be broadly similar to Catholic views, so I'd expect them to endorse the distinction as well. > I don't think the Pope believes what you are saying. This stuff is standard in seminary training for Catholic priests – so I'm pretty sure Pope Francis knows it – and although we can't know what's going on in his head, why would he disagree with it?

by jjcon 4y ago

gjsman-1000 4y ago

"misunderstanding the use of the word" Aka, I've used someone else's redefinition of the word away from the vernacular understanding, to redefine it to support my view of the world. See also "recession."

jondeval 4y ago
Not quite. Although I fully understand the feedback. There are 2 equally valid senses in which the word creator can be used. Both conform to standard definitions but each used in a different sense. I tried to add clarity in the response above. Thanks!

pronlover723 4y ago

I took it to mean "god is somewhere, you need to explain how that somewhere and god themselves came into being"

jondeval 4y ago

Sure. I'll try. There are two senses to understand the word creator. I'll illustrate both by analogies to the way 'we' create as people: (1) A violinist is creating the music that you are currently hearing. Here and now in the present. (2) A painter created a painting in the 19th century, and you can see the artifact on the wall in a museum. In the case of (1) the creator brings the song into being out of nothing. More or less, don't squabble over sound waves. :^). When the violinist stops playing, the music stops. Here and now in the present. In the case of (2) the painter finished the work 'at some point in time' and we can have all sorts of interesting conversations about when exactly the artifact was created. Did the painter really paint it in the way some book said that he did? Does the painter maintain any connection to the painting after it's finished? etc. You see, if the proper sense of the word creator is actually (1). Then all discussions about (2) are distractions. So, it's important to remember that, for example, knowledgeable Christians refer to God as the creator in the sense of (1). There may or may not be some interesting discussions to be had about whether God is a creator in the sense of (2) but they are conversations about secondary causes, and very much irrelevant to God's existence and the role as the primary cause.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> So, it's important to remember that, for example, knowledgeable Christians refer to God as the creator in the sense of (1) I am very curious why you think that - given that the Bible and all common teachings of it that I've ever seen very explicitly define God as the creator in the second sense (Genesis very clearly describes past events - not just Let there be light and so on, which could be taken as metaphors for every day dawning, but also Adam and even and all of their descendants, which are described and were understood throughout history as ancestors, not metaphors). The Jewish calendar is even numbered since the year of creation. Also, while I'm now atheistic, I received at least basic Eastern Orthodox education in school, and the very explicit notion there was that God was the creator of the universe; I also know modern Catholic teaching explicitly names God as the cause of the Big Bang itself, or whatever else science finds to be the mechanism by which the observable universe formed. Also, while many do accept the possibility of miracles, even some commonly recurring miracles (like the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ during Holy Communion during every Sunday Mass), the working of the natural world is accepted as ordained by God, but not personally directed by Him - this is quite explicit at least in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, where any direct intervention of God on Earth is seen as a miracle, usually related to a Saint. Note: I am not saying that there are no Christians that believe what you are saying, or that it somehow runs counter to Christianity. I am only saying that I don't think it is a common understanding of Christianity, even one limited to more literate/knowledgeable Christians; e.g. I don't think the Pope believes what you are saying.
- skissane 4y ago
  What the GP is talking about, is the traditional distinction made in philosophy between in fieri and in esse causation. A causes B in fieri if A was necessary for B to begin to exist–but once B exists, it can continue to exist even if A ceases to exist. A causes B in esse if B can only exist as long as A continues to exist (and do whatever is needful to sustain B in existence.) You will not find this idea directly stated in the Bible anywhere – these terms were developed in mediaeval scholastic philosophy (although the concept arguably goes back further). Among Roman Catholics, it is certainly the standard view–indeed, I think it is actually an official dogma that God continuously sustains the universe in existence (creates it in esse), as opposed to the deist view that God created it in fieri but its continued existence no longer depends on him. Many Protestant philosophers invoke the same distinction. Philosophy of this kind is less popular in Eastern Orthodoxy (especially in recent times) – but when Orthodox thinkers have taken an interest in these kinds of philosophical topics, their views on them tend to be broadly similar to Catholic views, so I'd expect them to endorse the distinction as well. > I don't think the Pope believes what you are saying. This stuff is standard in seminary training for Catholic priests – so I'm pretty sure Pope Francis knows it – and although we can't know what's going on in his head, why would he disagree with it?