# A Thought in God's Mind



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2006)

I've been thinking about how we "exist" to God.

What do you think about saying: we exist as a thought in God's mind.

We are not God. We are created by God. We are real. But how do we exist in relation to Him? Is there anyplace that God is not? How could creation not be God if God is omnipresent? If there is a Creator/creature distinction, then what makes that distinction? It seems I keep going to back to existing in the mind of God as a thought.


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 9, 2006)

Well, I guess one could say we exist in the mind of God in a sense. But, in my finite mind, it seems that to say we are _just a thought_ of God, sort of denigrates his capacity to create. God's creation is very real and tangible. That God's infinite mind has a relation to his creation is assumed. I don't guess our finite minds can adequately comprehend omnipotence, omniscience, and we may really only see the glories of it-- at our glorification.

I remember skimming this stuff from Kant to Descartes-- and got nothing from it. 

Incidentally, in the Heavenlies, I think _everything_ will be even more _real_ and _tangible_ to us-- as there will be no Third Law of Thermodynamics, entropy, no loss or deterioration of sensory preception or the consequences of sin-- and will be fully conformed to the image of Christ.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## ANT (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> I've been thinking about how we "exist" to God.
> 
> What do you think about saying: we exist as a thought in God's mind.



Personally, I think we are more than just a thought in God's mind, being that we exist in a material form and are said to exist eternally.

This probably rests in the category of ... 'The secret things belong to the Lord our God' in Deut. 29.29 I think it would be almost presumptive to begin to try to understand what form God's thoughts take place in. We know He is Spirit, but we do not know nor can we say that his thoughts exist in material form. 

For us this is reality ... because God's Word says we are this way (bodily form), and that we will exist eternally with God this way.

I personally can not see us just existing as a thought in God's mind, given the fact that we are not God. Wouldn't that make us one of God's thoughts, therefore making us a part of God? I know we can exist outside of God (as creation/creator separates us), but we are still being held in existence according to God's power, will & decrees.

I hope some of that makes sense and I don't look like a complete boob now.  It's just my ...


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 9, 2006)

I don't really think I know what I'm talking about either... I'm not a philosopher...


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Isn't saying we are just a thought in God's mind similar to saying that God did not create ex nihilo, but rather created the substance of the world out of his own substance. It at least seems to be similar reasoning.

On what level are you thinking when you ask if God is present everywhere? We know that God is spirit, and we know that there is a distinction between the created, material world and spirit. It wouldn't then defy logic to say that God as spirit and atom x occupy the exact same point in time and space and still be separate entities.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by bradofshaw]


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 9, 2006)

Yeah, actually Brad now that you mention it-- reducing God's creation to a mere thought of his mind tinges on pantheism. Though, God's mind definitely has a relation to his creation as God is omniscient.

I don't like making bold statements on issues like this-- though, it's interesting to think about-- I'm just afraid I would eat my words, and say something heretical...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 9, 2006)

"In him we live and move and have our being."

We are not God; God is not us; panthesism is false.

However, God _is_ our environment. He is the ultimate environment, of everything he has made.


----------



## ANT (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> Isn't saying we are just a thought in God's mind similar to saying that God did not create ex nihilo, but rather created the substance of the world out of his own substance. It at least seems to be similar reasoning.



That makes sense to me.




> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I don't like making bold statements on issues like this-- though, it's interesting to think about-- I'm just afraid I would eat my words, and say something heretical...



 That's exactly how I feel! 




[Edited on 3-9-2006 by ANT]


----------



## Peters (Mar 9, 2006)

I'm not sure what is meant by God's "mind". Maybe we should ask what the "nothing" was from which we were created.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 9, 2006)

What are we? Do our bodies define us (in part), or just our souls/minds?


----------



## ANT (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> What are we? Do our bodies define us (in part), or just our souls/minds?



We are both aren't we? Doesn't the Bible define us as having both which makes up our existence for eternity? Together they would define us as a whole.



My ... 




[Edited on 3-9-2006 by ANT]


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 9, 2006)

> I'm not sure what is meant by God's "mind". Maybe we should ask what the "nothing" was from which we were created.



That is a good question. However, the traditional understanding of creation ex nihilo (as far as I know) is that nothing is nothing. The confessions attribute substance to God, so He is not nothing. So, in the beginning there was not nothing, but there was God. So when God created ex nihilo, He did not create using material existing in addition to himself, because there was nothing else besides Himself. But if God used His own substance to create, than he did not create ex nihilo. 

My question would then be, if our existence is on some imaginary level within God's mind, rather than on a physical level existing in addition to God's substance, than why keep a doctrine of ex nihilo? 

Also, it seems to seriously screw with the concept of God taking on flesh and becoming man. This has the potential to boil down to terminology though, if what you mean by "existing in the mind of God" bears the exact characteristics of what we would naturally assume to be existing in substance along side of God.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 9, 2006)

Boy, Matthew likes to drop in here and stir things up. LOL Don't hurt yourself, guys.


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Boy, Matthew likes to drop in here and stir things up. LOL Don't hurt yourself, guys.



Funny you should mention that..
That is what I was hoping was going on upon reading his post

 Dohhhhhh!

In Christ


----------



## JohnV (Mar 9, 2006)

Whatever we may think about our relationship to God, the finite to the infinite, the temporal to the eternal, the spirit to the Spirit, etc., we have to remember that Christ became one of us and died for us: the Second person of the Trinity becoming incarnate, and dying in our stead. And now the Son of God is eternally two natures in one, both man and God. So this relationship is not just of us to God, but also now of the Son of God to God the Father. 

I think that it might be more thinkable in terms of Uncreate in relation to the created, rather than in terms of a creator/creature distinction. It isnt' just that God thought and there was; it was that God spoke and there was. This suggests covenant to me; that there was relationship between the three persons of the Trinity in perfect union and blessedness, and that from that God spoke through the Son to create out of nothing all that now is. 

I don't see how this can be reduced to mere thought, for then it is more than just man that loses significance. 

Just throwing a few thoughts out for us to think on.


----------



## ANT (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by MeanieCalvinist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ivan_
> ...



Now we just wait to see what Matt has to say next time he drops in, then we'll find out what he's thinkin' about.


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 9, 2006)

It's like, ya know, the matrix and stuff...

:bigsmile:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 9, 2006)

To say God is simply omnipresent is problematic unless clarified carefully. God is not material, He is transcendentally present (or non present corporeally) within our reality. I don't believe it is accurate to say that God is everywhere, broadly speaking. That is more akin to Hegel and other pantheism.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> "In him we live and move and have our being."
> 
> We are not God; God is not us; panthesism is false.
> ...



Bruce - that's great. I'm there with you. 

Still, if He is our enviornment, is it like a fish in water? How do we exist for him?

To say that a thought of God is degrading would be to degenerate the thoughts of God. No thought of God is degrating. It would actually be the opposite - because we ARE a thought of God, WOW! that God would actually create "out of nothing" by word (thought?) us.

Funny Ivan, on the drop in and out thing. 


I really don't mean to do that. I pop in as I have a break at work, or lunch.

I've been thinking about this for about 4 months. I don't like where Edwards and Gestner go with this - its almost pantheistic.

BUT - this is a tough subject.

On the "nothing", I think we should classify that as "non-created." Created matter of any kind did not exist before it was created. But if that matter holds a position "in God" as our enviornment, does that creation take up a place where God is not. I say NO. 

God is everwhere present, even penetrating, or maybe upholding all things by His power. Hebrews 1:3 "and upholding all things by the word of His power." Acts 17:28 "for in Him we live and move and have our being." Ephesians 1:23 "the fullness of Him who fills all in all." 

Colossians is a clincher on this: Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and *in Him* _all things_ consist.

Gabe's warning is a good one. If God is spiritually upholding everything, then how does material interect with spiritual? Is this just a mystery? However, we still need to have a good way of addressing the question "how do we exist for God "in Him?""

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## ANT (Mar 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> However, we still need to have a good way of addressing the question "how do we exist for God "in Him?""
> 
> [Edited on 3-9-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]




I think only God can understand how we exist for Him. We can but merely speculate.


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 9, 2006)

> On the "nothing", I think we should classify that as "non-created." Created matter of any kind did not exist before it was created. But if that matter holds a position "in God" as our enviornment, does that creation take up a place where God is not. I say NO.



We exist only in thought: 

What does it mean to say this? When we as humans think, it does not necessarily come to be. Creation is when we take the thoughts in our mind and bring them about in our external, observable reality. We can only do this via other created material, but we can bring about things external to ourselves and make them more than thought. But if God can only create in thought, than God is limited. He cannot bring it about in substance. He is unable to create anything besides himself, because nothing exists besides God. I think that is the logical conclusion of your question.

Furthermore, if you are going to say that God does not create substance other than Himself, than either we do not exist substantially, or we are the same substance as God. Now to say God can create thought other than himself, makes things worse. We still have to deal with the claims that God is omnipresent. How is God present in thoughts which are not himself? We have the same problem, we have just moved the object from the outside of God, to the inside of God. 

As I said before, I don't see a problem with God existing at the same point in time and space with created matter, and not being the same things as that matter. Does he have to be the same as the actual substance of created matter to be present everywhere? Do you have to be the same as your office to be present at work? I think you are creating a false dilemma in which you are going to have to either throw out the physical existence of the world, or the omnipresence of God. 




> God is everwhere present, even penetrating, or maybe upholding all things by His power. Hebrews 1:3 "and upholding all things by the word of His power." Acts 17:28 "for in Him we live and move and have our being." Ephesians 1:23 "the fullness of Him who fills all in all."



I think terms like present, penetrating, and upholding all necessitate an outside "something" to be enacted upon. How questions can become non terminating decimals if you know what I mean.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by bradofshaw]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2006)

Brad, the dilemma you bring up is exactly the road that Jonathan Edwards actually took. Gerstner followed him. They could not fathom "creation ex nihilo" and thought that such was a contradiction. In any case, we certainly do not want to go there.

How then do you think, or anyone, that the question can be answered intelligibly?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 9, 2006)




----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 10, 2006)

> Brad, the dilemma you bring up is exactly the road that Jonathan Edwards actually took. Gerstner followed him. They could not fathom "creation ex nihilo" and thought that such was a contradiction. In any case, we certainly do not want to go there.



Can you clarify this for me? Is this just a matter of Edwards not believing in something, or does he believe there is some logical contradiction with the doctrine? I guess I'm not understanding the dilemma because I've never had a problem with the concept of creation ex nihilo. Is his problem the same thing you have expressed, namely the omnipresence of God if there is created matter besides God? I still don't see why we can't exist in addition to God, all while being completely encompassed in God's omnipresence.




> How then do you think, or anyone, that the question can be answered intelligibly?



Suggestion regarding "In Him": 


Ephesians 1:7 "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." 

2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" 

2 Corinthians 5:21: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 

These verses suggest covenantal, federal headship in Christ. It is only "in Christ" who stands in our place that we have salvation. All that is necessary for salvation resides "in Christ." 



> Colossians is a clincher on this: Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.



Other translations say "all things hold together." Maybe that clarifies things. Is there any sort of controversy over the translation? I did look up the defenition of consist, and it actually does have the denotation of things "holding together."

Every thing that is necessary for us to have being, and for all things to "hold together" resides in the person of Christ. If he were not worth being glorified, history would not need to revolve around Christ's redemptive work. If he did not posess the necessary wisdom to found the earth, the earth would not be able to exist as it does. If He did not possess a will that cannot be thwarted, than there is a chance that things might not hold together. 

That's my best shot at an expaination.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 10, 2006)

Brad,

Just with Edwards - he could not believe that God would take "nothing" and "could" make it "something." He thought that was a contradiction. Nothing never produces something. God cannot violate the laws of logic, and he thought that seemed to violate them.

Trevor,

Berkley has some good things to "say" BUT is not correct. He says that England doesn't exit for me until I get there. I can't prove it does not exist at all until I get there. But what he is missing is that it exists in the mind of God, thus it is there based on God's truthfulness, omnipotence, etc.


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 10, 2006)

*Another Stab at This...*

I'm envisioning 4 possibel scenarios (which are not absurd): 


1. Either God is able to bring things into existence which are other than him, and which previously did not exist

or

2. God is only able to create from his own substance

or

3. God is only able to create from his own substance or another primary substance which has always existed 

or

4. God is in fact, impotent to create, and can only imagine things other than himself. 

The fourth option raises the question how a God, who is unable to bring things into existence which are not himself and do not exist, can imagine things which do not exist. What could possibly be the cause of these thoughts? This view, if Edwards logic prevails, is no more sound than the first.

But if we view God as a cause which has the adequate (and unique, I might add) power to have purely original thought, than why would it be illogical for that same God to have the power to create, originally, that which is not himself? 

You do not have something coming from nothing. You Have God, who is perfect in power, wisdom, knowledge, and will, able to make, by the force of his being, something come into existence which had not existed. In other words, you have in God the sufficient cause necessary to bring about something which did not previously exist.

If God is eternal, and knows all things perfectly, than our existence in God's mind is part of who God is. There was never a time when God did not have an idea of creating the world. So there was never a thought of creation that suddenly happened, rather it always existed in God's mind. But I think we can say there was a time when God created, and when God became man and interacted physically with that creation. Therefore, I think you have to make a distinction between the existence of the world in God's mind (from all eternity) and the space/time creation of the world (having a beginning and end). Otherwise you would be forced to say that the created world is eternal, being that it always existed in God's mind.

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by bradofshaw]

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by bradofshaw]


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 10, 2006)

About Edwards' belief that creation out of nothing was a contradiction:

I wonder how much of this apparent problem was due to the Newtonian physics that would have dominated Edwards' understanding of the world.

Follow me for a second:

It seems that there are two possibilities in regards to Edwards' concern:

Either 
(1) Edwards believed creation ex nihilo implied the creation of new matter from no previously existing substance, or
(2) Edwards believed creation ex nihilo implied the creation of new matter from utter nothingness (ie no substance, no cause, no reason).

Given Edwards' excellent work with the Aristotelian causes, I have hard time swallowing option number 2. I have to think that he was able to separate the material cause from the formal, efficient, and final causes.

Therefore, assuming that he was not confusing the material cause, the only other option is to assume that Edwards really did have a problem with the idea that a new substance could be introduced without a previously existing substance.

This leads me to believe that part of his problem here lies with Newtonian physics, in which matter is absolute and concrete. Given that scientific worldview, it is easier to understand why one would be opposed to the idea of creating matter out of nothing -- it would violate the apparently bedrock laws of physics.

I wonder if he had privy to the Einsteinian and quantum views of physics, if he would have felt as strongly that matter created out of nothing implied a logical contradiction. The knowledge that matter can be transferred into energy, and vice versa, certainly seems to make the idea of matter created out of not-matter more palatable.

In any case, I am not convinced that the above argument entirely explains Edwards' (and Gerstner's) difficulties with creation ex nihilo, but I think that Edwards' scientific worldview was a contributing factor.


----------



## bradofshaw (Mar 10, 2006)

Mark, I figured you would eventually bump into this thread. Too bad I missed out on that Edwards class at Belhaven by a year. 

If option two were the case, I can see why "ex nihilo" would seem impossible. But then only if you put pure cause and reason as being above God, and not as flowing from the person of God.


----------

