Saturday, July 11, 2009

God and System

In the Formaterial System, everything has both Form and Matter. This means that nothing is extra-systematic, and that pure Form does not exist. Hence, the System rejects the notions of God as existing outside of a System, and of an immaterial God. Instead, it maintains that a monotheistic God is intrinsically implicated in some System or another, and has a Material nature, e. g. as the starting point of a Becoming-Diverse process, or as the terminus of a Becoming-the-Same process. While most Abrahamic theologicans seem likely to reject that notion of their God, their very own scriptures exemplify it. Genesis begins with a description of God-creating-the-universe, not of God subsisting on his own. Furthermore, all subsequent descriptions of divine action are of a similar structure. On the other hand, the gathering of people to worship or to listen to God is an example of the Becoming-the-Same of the System. Literal readings of scriptures support this analysis, so the onus is on those theologians to substantiate their insistence that God exists independently of his creation. But doing so will be internally destructive to their doctrines, because they are obstinantly committed to the concept of an immaterial God, as seen in their antipathy to, e. g. Spinoza's Pantheism, which attributes a corporeal nature to God. A further important theological question will be discussed later, after I have fully developed the notion of a personal system, i. e. of a sub-system, in its relations to its super-system. At that point I will be better prepared to introduce an analysis of a personal 'relationship' with God.

2 comments:

  1. The literal reading of the Scripture is not how it should be read. It should be read with the eyes, mind, and heart of faith. God's existence is, in fact, his essence...hence, God is Pure Act. He is the ipsum esse subsistens!

    ReplyDelete
  2. A lot of people do argue that it should be read 'literally', and a lot of those same people argue that God exists in separation from his creation--those are whom I address with that comment. Note that characterizing God as both existentially and essentially "Pure Act" does not in itself explain the creation of creatures, creatures who are not Pure Act, and whose existence is not their essence. One central difficulty in explaining that, which my approach means to solve, is how to distinguish creatures from their creator without ontologically denigrating them.

    ReplyDelete