Thoughts of mine.

Be forewarned, this is rather serious material, and probably organized via the "chaos is order" theory which states, well, nothing really.

Anyway, in my quest for a home church and an understanding of God it seemed proper to me to try to understand God all the while understanding he's not understandable. A lot of my thought stems from (I think it's ) the Anselmnian definition of God which defines God as the greatest possible being. In fact, there's likely to be all sorts of fragments of freshmen year's Problems in Philosophy scattered throughout this. Here goes.

The first thing to make note of is that we exist. This is arguable, but I think that very few people will bother to wrangle with me on that presupposition. Fundamental to my thought train is the notion that I and everyone I meet exist.

But why?

Instead of jumping straight to God here, I thoroughly muse on the other possibilities. We exist because of some event wherein the Universe was set into motion, Big Bang or no. Aside from the complicated fine tuning of various constant of physics required to birth life as we know it, another question arises. Did the universe exist before the Big Bang/whatever?

First let us suppose it didn't. If that is the case, we have an unexplained anomaly in that a large amount of matter appeared out of nowhere. It seems improbably that matter would appear out of nowhere without something behind it. While it is possible to just believe that the matter came to pass and label it all as a mystery much like many aspects of God, it is hardly satisfying to me.

So, instead let us suppose the universe always existed. This is almost as hard to cope with as the previous paragraphed subject. In order for the universe to always have existed, the universe must be a necessary entity. Here we must now qualify several meanings. A necessary entity is something that quite simply, must exist. An unnecessary entity is one that can exist, but doesn't need to. For example, while we may all exist, our existence seems hardly necessary, especially given contraceptive choices these days. This points out an important aspect of unnecessary entities, they must be created. Unnecessary entities can be made by other unnecessary entities, but somewhere at the top of the hierarchy there must be a necessary entity.

The question becomes one of the necessity of the universe. Is the universe something that must exist? The universe is necessary for our type of life, that much is certain, but is it absolutely necessary? Given the science fiction stories concerning the destruction of parallel universes, and all sorts of similar tales it doesn't seem too far out an idea that the universe isn't necessary. Even beyond science fiction, true scientists talk endlessly about how the universe will end. If the universe can end, then its existence isn't necessary.

So, if the universe isn't necessary, there must be some entity above the universe which is.

If we define God as the "greatest possible being", being necessary is surely greater than being unnecessary and so we can attribute that to God. If God is necessary, he could therefore be the creator of the unnecessary entity of the universe (or however many other ones he wants). Thus, not only can we ascribe that there needs to be an entity to have created the universe, but we can say that God must necessarily exist to do the job. One can argue for some other necessary entity, but I've never heard a convincing argument (yet) for any other one (they all really were just for another word for God) or for the necessity of the universe or a universe creating gizmo.

Exactly why I went into all that just now I don't know, since I'm sure all of us here are pretty set on God's existence. My philosophical leanings (leanings since much of the thought above isn't originally my own, but already tread paths I've been shown and found sensical) aren't the only reason I believe in God. But I won't go on about any of the other reasons, at least not now.

In any case, with God's existence squared away I move on.

Now, God being the greatest possible being immediately lends us to throwing all sorts of great attributes at him. He isn't just good at loving, he is capable of the greatest love. He isn't just just, he's more just than all. He's isn't just good, etc. In addition to more emotion related attributes, God can also be given attributes such as Omnipotence (if we have power, it seems logical that God could have all power), Omnipresence (if we can be somewhere, and to go out on a leg be in two places at once via astral projection, surely God can be everywhere) and Omniscience (miss Cleo ain't got nothing on God).

Basically, any attribute that can have greatness, God got to the nth degree.

Now, there is a hole here, and a doozy of one, in that for reasons we don't understand God created the universe and us despite our being unnecessary. If God is the greatest possible being, surely he more than anyone else doesn't need anyone else. I haven't well developed this area of my thought, that's about as far as I've gotten. Anyway, while we don't know why God created us, we know his purpose for us. Namely, to follow him.

Given this purpose, why would God create us so that some of us would stray and not follow him? Obviously with Omniscience and Omnipotence God knew full well before he did anything what the result was going to be. For God, this was like one of those movies where the Hero travels forwards in time and inadvertently saves himself from a danger without realizing it was him he was saving. Thus, he knows when he reaches that future point how everything will turn out. Except in God's case it gets a little ridiculous to try to fathom.

Anyway, with God knowing exactly how everyone would turn out depending on how he made them, why make people in such a way that they will turn from you or not find you? The best answer I've heard goes something like this.

It boils down to the difference between wooing your love and giving you love a love potion that makes them love you. It has been my experience that love without choice is somehow more empty than a love that require choice and even cost. In fact, a chosen love that comes at cost seems to always have been deeper than one that comes without cost. God could very well have made every last person on Earth follow him without fault or flaw. But God isn't looking for mindless yes-men. Through choice a genuine love is created and through cost it is made deeper.

If that is not the case, then God can not be said to be as great as he possibly can. Any creator who's creation fails its purpose must have made a mistake or given their creation a design flaw. To have done so would count against God's greatness, which goes against the definition we're working with. So therefore God created is to love him genuinely and deeply.

Now, all this requires a choice, and there is much debate over whether we are predestined to choose what we do, whether we have free will, or whether we really don't have a choice at all. My thought train has obvious problems with that last one. So we'll stick with predestination and free will. It is important to note that in predestination as I'm thinking of it, there is still a choice, but the choice we make is predetermined for us before we ever make it. This will lead to complication later on.

My problem with predestination will be exampled by an example my professor used. He had one of those battery powered toy dogs whose leash had two buttons for control. One button made the dog walk forward, the other button makes the dog bark. My professor told the dog, "Do not bark" while continually holding down the button which made it do so. He leveled fearsome threats at the dog, and consequences for its noncompliance with his no barking policy, but as he didn't let go of the button it just kept on barking. He eventually kicked the dog a number of times, and the point was made.

In the same way, I am not at ease with the idea that God can tell people to obey him, all the while controlling their choices so that they won't. In the case of people bound for heaven this may be passable as a means to making them better people and tools of God, but if he's pulling the strings behind all of the souls bound for the nether realms is God good? I can not answer yes.

This leaves me with free will in the face of God knowing the outcomes of all our choices. Here, perhaps, is the most obvious indicator of a paradox I don't think entirely paradoxical. God made us and knows exactly how we'll choose, but we still of our own free will make the choice to either seek him or not to. It seems like predestination because God knew before he made us how we'd choose. But he ultimately isn't controlling our actions because he is respecting the free will he granted us by allow us to exercise it as we see fit whichever course we take. It's similar to parents who have children leaving for college and afterwards (or straight away) for another life while still being rebellious. Good parents ask how their offspring is doing but leave their fate in their own hands.

However, this concept lends itself to other problems. There are a large number of people who have not and will not hear the gospel message in their time on earth. How can they choose God or choose their own will when they never learn they even have a choice? In order for my train of thought to not derail, everyone must before their judgment have one opportunity for making a choice.

I struggled with this for a while because there didn't seem to be any indication in the Bible as to anything on Earth happening to rectify my trainwreck. It was after a few readings of the New Testament that I stumbled across a verse that was helpful. It is important to note that this verse is translated differently in different translations. I haven't talked to anyone about the actual Greek (I think 1 Peter was in Greek, but the only other option is Hebrew, but either way), but while different versions lead to starkly different intepretations without context, here's the jist of 1 Peter 4:5 as I've noted. This is a possible point of distinct argument and disagreement.

Basically, Peter mentioned Jesus preaching to the dead. It's getting late and I should probably be in bed shortly so I won't go into an exegesis given full context of the passage and everything. Anyway, this was something that seemed relevant to my problem. I've been cautious about this point because I've seen too many people in the past take one verse out of context and screw themselves up royally theologically and in their very lives.

In any case, if Jesus preached to the dead then it is possible my problem is solved. Everyone who ever was, is or will be could all be given one last (or simply one) chance to repent before judgment. While I don't know the specifics, I know that the Orthodox believe that Hades is different than Hell in that Hades was destroyed by Jesus upon his death and that Hades was where all the souls of those who died had been waiting for judgment.

An issue with this last chance is the question, "Who wouldn't?" My answer is, a lot of people. Honestly, I have a lot of non-Christian friends who lives have redefined what it means to be in the bottom of a black pit, by their own admission. Their parents aren't necessarily inferior material possession-wise to mine, in fact some of them were far wealthier (some were much less so). Despite the obvious fact that I'm quite happy despite circumstances that come my way and other pointers that indicate that I have access to something they don't, there is a stubbornness with which people will cling to completely unhealthy decisions they've made. I don't mean to set myself up as a paragon of anything and set non-Christians into a generalization of patheticness (I've known my fair share of happy atheists and depressed, problem ridden Christians), but what strikes me is the way with which people will dogmatically stick to bad decisions and life choices and not only refuse to seek a better way but openly refuse any and all offers of help or directions to safer havens.

In a similar fashion, I think it is entirely possible for people to recognize a choice can save them but choose the wrong choice despite that.

In fact, the reason why I still think missions are important despite this "last chance" is because at the very least, hearing the gospel message or being exposed to a devoted Christian can soften the heart from such foolhardiness. Even if someone dies unsaved, perhaps their chances of making the right choice that last time having been around a good Christian than otherwise.

In conclusion, the end of my thought train relies more heavily on that one verse than I'm comfortable with. Unfortunately, finals came up at around this point (though some thought continued) and made me put aside scanning the bible for other possible references (not that I'm even comfortable with that idea, because it seems biased at the outset) or seeking more expert advice actively (although God graciously dropped opportunities in my lap such as the exposure to an Orthodox view). Other things have cropped up since then, but I don't have a good excuse for more recent procrastination.

In any case, I'm not posting this hear because I like to watch myself type or be yes-manned myself. While I'm not discouraging people from pointing out what they agree with, I'm much more interested in your unique thoughts on the subject and where you disagree with me and what major gaping holes of reason you see.

I look forward to hearing your responses. :)