Christian Cosmology?

[TheAtheist]

Heaven, Hell, Purgatory… (and Limbo?)

Have any particular definitive statements been made about the existence of such places? I’ll assume that despite talk of “Up and Down” - most Christians these days do not identify Heaven or Hell as being located somewhere beneath the Earth or up in the clouds.

Do they even reside in the physical universe? Or are they just “somewhere?”

 

[cpayne]

Do they even reside in the physical universe? Or are they just “somewhere?”

The first question: My guess would be “definitely no”–although I’m sure some would disagree.

Second question: Could you specify a bit what you mean by “somewhere”?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Do they even reside in the physical universe? Or are they just “somewhere?”

They are “somewhere,” as no doubt you will find out someday.

 

[Cristiano]

Heaven, Hell, Purgatory… (and Limbo?)

Have any particular definitive statements been made about the existence of such places? I’ll assume that despite talk of “Up and Down” - most Christians these days do not identify Heaven or Hell as being located somewhere beneath the Earth or up in the clouds.

Do they even reside in the physical universe? Or are they just “somewhere?”

They intersect with the physical universe. Humans are and will always be physical beings, and humans will be in heaven and hell. I think that the problems is with our limited knowledge of the physical universe and the power of God, and the two go together.

 

[annem]

I’ll assume that despite talk of “Up and Down” - most Christians these days do not identify Heaven or Hell as being located somewhere beneath the Earth or up in the clouds.

The bible is rich in allegory and metaphor. Were you raised as a Protestant?

God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[TheAtheist]

Second question: Could you specify a bit what you mean by “somewhere”?

That’s kind of the problem, as i’m lacking a term so i have to use “somewhere.”

If i understand this correctly, the medieval cosmological view per Aristotle was that these pieces of “real estate” if you will existed outside/beyond the Sub-Lunary Sphere.

Umm, for those who are curious:

1.) For a more traditional rendition: physics.ship.edu/~mrc/pfs/110/inside_out/vu1/Galileo/Images/Astro/Conceptions/ptolematic_universe.gif

And for those who want something more modern and not in Latin: csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.gif

2.) abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/wiltall_und_menschheit.gif Depiction of a Man piercing the SubLunary sphere.

I’m unsure how this was all organized prior to Aristotle, i can only make the conjecture that Christians of that time period utilized Plato’s cosmological renderings found in the Timaeus.

But more to the point: The previous cosmological schema implied that if a person left the SubLunary sphere they would eventually arrive at the “Sphere of the Prime Mover” which would be Heaven proper - Domain of God, et al.

This is no longer the case. As you’ve stated, few Christians believe at this particular period of time that Heaven or Hell can be accessed in such a manner. IE: I can’t “voyage in space” to either location.

If that is the case, then where in the Christian mindset would these places actually reside?

Are we essentially talking about another dimension? Parallel Universe?

I guess what i’m saying is: How does this work?

SubQuestion: What exactly is the theological status for places like Limbo or Purgatory? I tend to get a lot conflicting views about such places from other denominations. Some say they don’t exist, they do exist. etc.

 

[annem]

'm unsure how this was all organized prior to Aristotle, i can only make the conjecture that Christians of that time period utilized Plato’s cosmological renderings found in the Timaeus.

The general reaction of Second Temple Jews to Hellenistic literature was to throw up. Well, maybe I’m being a bit too sarcastic here, but no, they didn’t swipe any beliefs from Plato.

I am astounded anyone, even the very dull of mind, would trust internet sites. Don’t you ever read books?

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[cpayne]

That’s kind of the problem, as i’m lacking a term so i have to use “somewhere.”

If i understand this correctly, the medieval cosmological view per Aristotle was that these pieces of “real estate” if you will existed outside/beyond the Sub-Lunary Sphere.

Umm, for those who are curious:

1.) For a more traditional rendition: physics.ship.edu/~mrc/pfs/110/inside_out/vu1/Galileo/Images/Astro/Conceptions/ptolematic_universe.gif

And for those who want something more modern and not in Latin: csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.gif

2.) abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/wiltall_und_menschheit.gif Depiction of a Man piercing the SubLunary sphere.

I’m unsure how this was all organized prior to Aristotle, i can only make the conjecture that Christians of that time period utilized Plato’s cosmological renderings found in the Timaeus.

But more to the point: The previous cosmological schema implied that if a person left the SubLunary sphere they would eventually arrive at the “Sphere of the Prime Mover” which would be Heaven proper - Domain of God, et al.

This is no longer the case. As you’ve stated, few Christians believe at this particular period of time that Heaven or Hell can be accessed in such a manner. IE: I can’t “voyage in space” to either location.

If that is the case, then where in the Christian mindset would these places actually reside?

Are we essentially talking about another dimension? Parallel Universe?

I guess what i’m saying is: How does this work?

SubQuestion: What exactly is the theological status for places like Limbo or Purgatory? I tend to get a lot conflicting views about such places from other denominations. Some say they don’t exist, they do exist. etc.

Okay, here’s a possible parallel (and this is why I asked about the “somewhere”): According to some Catholic philosophers, the soul is “in” every part of the body; it has to be, in order for the body to live as a unitary, organized entity. When the body loses a part (an appendectomy, let’s say) the soul remains with the unified entity (the human), not with the lost body part, which therefore is no longer alive.

But since the soul is non-physical, what does it mean for it to be “in” the physical body?

Maybe the spiritual world is like that–it is “in” the universe as a soul is “in” a body, but since it is non-physical, it has no precise location, just as a soul has no precise “location” in a body. I’m not checking any of this, so I really don’t know if it’s even orthodox. It just sounds right to me.

 

[TheAtheist]

Well until told otherwise, i’ll have to take your word for it.

Cosmology, like Metaphysics, seems to be something “on the outs” these days.

 

[yppop]

Are we essentially talking about another dimension? Parallel Universe?

I am betting on a Parallel World (Universe) scenario. Here is I wrote on another thread: Is there Time in Heaven?

*The Parallel Worlds Theory (PWT) comes from the Many Worlds Interpretation of the Schroedinger Wave Equation. It implies that we all exist in many if not an infinite number of possible worlds. This seems to me to be the perfect answer to the question of Heaven. When I started out in my quest to find the meaning of life twenty some years ago, I began with the premise that in order for the world to have meaning, there must be hope, and the only hope is for God to exist in order to provide the promised salvation. So I imagined what I wanted Heaven to be like. I wanted to live this life over again with the same relationships to my parents, my children, and my grandchildren. I didn’t want, for example, to be the same age as them. So when I die, I expect my soul to show up in another lifetime with the same body and the same relationships that I experienced in this one. Yes there will be time in Heaven.

In the addition, in my next lifetime, some of the regrets of the this time around will be eliminated in the next, so that with each succeeding lifetime, my life and the world would be better. Eventually, we would all live in a perfect world, Heaven, the omega point, or the Pleroma, or whatever else you might want to call it.

Heaven based on the PWT offers many ways to rationalize answers for many of the questions we all ask ourselves. We all, for example, have done things we regret. I think regret, when genuine, builds conscience. That conscience, which is part of the soul, will follow me into the next lifetime, so, if I am confronted in the next lifetime with the same choice, I will be more apt to choose the one I won’t regret. Furthermore, a good confession will guarantee that those particular regrets that are confessed will be rectified in the next lifetime. The fewer regrets I have, the more awe, peace, and joy—the rewards for accepting God’s grace—I will experience.

I hope that some of you could see the possibility of other ways to find answers to unanswered questions on the basis of a Heaven based on PWT.*

Yppop

 

[rookieonedge]

We’ve heard time and time again, St. Paul’s exclamation over his vision of Heaven (he’s not sure if he was in the body or outside of it), “Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard what God has prepared for those who love Him.” He didn’t let us in on what he saw, so, of course, we have to conjecture.’’

It may be of interest to note that in 1917 the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to three children in Fatima, Portugal. During one vision, Our Lady let them (and beyond them, all of us) know that there is a Hell. The children stated that the earth opened up to reveal the hideous forms and sounds of the devils and the damned. Now I"m not necessarily saying that Hell is inside the earth. God uses metaphors and descriptive language, too, as shown in Scripture.

wafusa.org/fatima_message/fatima_message.html

A painting of Hell was made by artist Salvador Dali in 1962. He was known for his Surrealistic style which he later combined with a religious mysticism.

seven7.demon.co.uk/dali/meanings2.htm

In a lighter vein, you might want to pick up an easy-to-read (lightweight but fun) book titled
A Travel Guide to Heaven by Anthony DeStefano. The New York Times exclaims ". . . [it] bubbles joyously about an incredible Technicolor afterlife that makes the journey over the rainbow to Oz pale in comparison. I read it and was buoyed up by its iinspirational tone. It may seem rather far-fetched, but I’d rather believe in something more tangible than esoteric, if you know what I mean.

The Narnia books by C.S. Lewis gives an interesting picture of Heaven (the last one to be sure).

As for Purgatory, we know that since God is Perfection itself (Himself!), only that which is perfect can see Him “face to face.” Some of the mystical saints have not only “traveled” through Heaven but even Purgatory; some have seen Hell. Saints who are considered “victim souls” have had people appear to them from Purgatory requesting prayer and re-appearing when their time in that state was over and they were enjoying the bliss of Heaven (St. Faustina, for one. Blessed Josepha Menendez another, both saints of the 20th Century. I believe St. Teresa of Avila had various visions of these three states of being, but I don’t know if she was a “victim soul” per se). These “victim souls” are chosen by God to make reparation for sinners).

There’s no evidence of Limbo that I’ve heard of. It was once thought that the unbaptized souls of babies go there and that it was a Paradise-type place, except that these souls would never see God “face to face.” We don’t know God’s mind, but we know that He is Divine Mercy (St. Faustina’s Diary–basis of Divine Mercy Sunday, the one after Easter). We’ll only find out in Eternity I suppose.

I fear I’m going to be writing a treatise if I don’t stop now. I just wanted to throw in a little information which you can take or leave. Blessings to all on this thread!

 

[rookieonedge]

I am betting on a Parallel World (Universe) scenario. Here is I wrote on another thread: Is there Time in Heaven?

*The Parallel Worlds Theory (PWT) comes from the Many Worlds Interpretation of the Schroedinger Wave Equation. It implies that we all exist in many if not an infinite number of possible worlds. This seems to me to be the perfect answer to the question of Heaven. When I started out in my quest to find the meaning of life twenty some years ago, I began with the premise that in order for the world to have meaning, there must be hope, and the only hope is for God to exist in order to provide the promised salvation. So I imagined what I wanted Heaven to be like. I wanted to live this life over again with the same relationships to my parents, my children, and my grandchildren. I didn’t want, for example, to be the same age as them. So when I die, I expect my soul to show up in another lifetime with the same body and the same relationships that I experienced in this one. Yes there will be time in Heaven.

In the addition, in my next lifetime, some of the regrets of the this time around will be eliminated in the next, so that with each succeeding lifetime, my life and the world would be better. Eventually, we would all live in a perfect world, Heaven, the omega point, or the Pleroma, or whatever else you might want to call it.

Heaven based on the PWT offers many ways to rationalize answers for many of the questions we all ask ourselves. We all, for example, have done things we regret. I think regret, when genuine, builds conscience. That conscience, which is part of the soul, will follow me into the next lifetime, so, if I am confronted in the next lifetime with the same choice, I will be more apt to choose the one I won’t regret. Furthermore, a good confession will guarantee that those particular regrets that are confessed will be rectified in the next lifetime. The fewer regrets I have, the more awe, peace, and joy—the rewards for accepting God’s grace—I will experience.

I hope that some of you could see the possibility of other ways to find answers to unanswered questions on the basis of a Heaven based on PWT.*

Yppop

It sounds like you believe in reincarnation which is condemned by the Church. We only have one life to live. After that come the “4 Last Things”: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell.

 

[yppop]

It sounds like you believe in reincarnation which is condemned by the Church. We only have one life to live. After that come the “4 Last Things”: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell.

Hello Rookieon edge

In addition to searching for the meaning of life, my motivation for investing as much time as I have in the last twenty-some years in studying science and math, was to find answers that my grandchildren could use in arguments with non-believers. Non-believers come in three flavors: cynic, skeptic, and materialist. The cynic believes that God doesn’t exist because the presence of evil and suffering argues against a benevolent supreme being. The skeptic believes that God doesn’t exist because there is no proof. The materialist believes that God doesn’t exist because matter alone defines reality and since the laws of physics define matter, there is no reason to invoke a supernatural agency. There are strong arguments supporting each of the positions of non-belief. Of the three, materialism presents the most vociferous and powerful argument against the existence of God, primarily because it is based on the success of science. Consequently, I developed a model of dual reality (see the thread “God exists, But How?”) that describes how God might exist at a deeper reality than the reality science describes and argues that all matter has a spiritual component.

To answer the cynic and the skeptic I called on the scientific theory of parallel worlds (universes) to create answers to some of the most difficult questions that are not normally answered by theology in a way that a cynic or skeptic would understand, hence my view of the nature of heaven.

The idea of multiple lifetimes is not so much for my benefit as for those that haven’t found the joy, awe, and peace that I have and I would like to think that they could have another shot at it. For example, I would hope that in a subsequent lifetime the child born with spinal bifida or those with any number of other maladies would be born with the same body but without the malady. Being reborn into the same body I believe is called resurrection; being reborn in a different human or non-human body is called reincarnation. Since I begin my prayers each morning with the Apostle’ Creed I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. I am a devout Catholic, and if I thought anything I wrote or write is in error, I would immediately renounce it. So if you could refer me to the information that says we only have one life to live, I would appreciate it.

Once again, thank you for your response,
Yppop

 

[rookieonedge]

Hello Rookieon edge

In addition to searching for the meaning of life, my motivation for investing as much time as I have in the last twenty-some years in studying science and math, was to find answers that my grandchildren could use in arguments with non-believers. Non-believers come in three flavors: cynic, skeptic, and materialist. The cynic believes that God doesn’t exist because the presence of evil and suffering argues against a benevolent supreme being. The skeptic believes that God doesn’t exist because there is no proof. The materialist believes that God doesn’t exist because matter alone defines reality and since the laws of physics define matter, there is no reason to invoke a supernatural agency. There are strong arguments supporting each of the positions of non-belief. Of the three, materialism presents the most vociferous and powerful argument against the existence of God, primarily because it is based on the success of science. Consequently, I developed a model of dual reality (see the thread “God exists, But How?”) that describes how God might exist at a deeper reality than the reality science describes and argues that all matter has a spiritual component.

To answer the cynic and the skeptic I called on the scientific theory of parallel worlds (universes) to create answers to some of the most difficult questions that are not normally answered by theology in a way that a cynic or skeptic would understand, hence my view of the nature of heaven.

The idea of multiple lifetimes is not so much for my benefit as for those that haven’t found the joy, awe, and peace that I have and I would like to think that they could have another shot at it. For example, I would hope that in a subsequent lifetime the child born with spinal bifida or those with any number of other maladies would be born with the same body but without the malady. Being reborn into the same body I believe is called resurrection; being reborn in a different human or non-human body is called reincarnation. Since I begin my prayers each morning with the Apostle’ Creed I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. I am a devout Catholic, and if I thought anything I wrote or write is in error, I would immediately renounce it. So if you could refer me to the information that says we only have one life to live, I would appreciate it.

Once again, thank you for your response,
Yppop

With all the time you’ve invested in studying science and math for your grandchildren, I certainly hope they appreciate it. I know I didn’t appreciate all my parents and grandparents did for me until I was a bit more mature. Now I wish I could thank them and even just talk to them about small stuff and the Big Things. So, maybe, it’ll take a while, but have your arguments, which are in agreement with Christ and His Church, all laid out and written down and give a notebook to each one of them. They may not understand at first, but with time. . .

Your definition of non-believers in “three flavors” was interesting and to the point. Also, I intend to check out the thread you mentioned, “God exists, But How?” for a "model of “dual reality.” ( I just wonder how it is that science would even consider the reality that God exists as your post inferred. And, how it is that “all matter has a spiritual component?”)

The only second body we’ll have is our resurrected body at the end of the world after the General Judgment. “Being reborn into the same, but new and improved body” sounds to me dubious at best, heretical at worst. As a matter of logic, if people thought their “next life” on earth (in their own body???) would be better, they wouldn’t want to hang around and wait for their present miserable life to end. Take note of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church
has to say:

2280 “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of he life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”

Notice the singular pronoun “it” referring to one life.

 

[yppop]

With all the time you’ve invested in studying science and math for your grandchildren, I certainly hope they appreciate it. I know I didn’t appreciate all my parents and grandparents did for me until I was a bit more mature. Now I wish I could thank them and even just talk to them about small stuff and the Big Things. So, maybe, it’ll take a while, but have your arguments, which are in agreement with Christ and His Church, all laid out and written down and give a notebook to each one of them. They may not understand at first, but with time. . .

Your definition of non-believers in “three flavors” was interesting and to the point. Also, I intend to check out the thread you mentioned, “God exists, But How?” for a "model of “dual reality.” ( I just wonder how it is that science would even consider the reality that God exists as your post inferred. And, how it is that “all matter has a spiritual component?”)

The only second body we’ll have is our resurrected body at the end of the world after the General Judgment. “Being reborn into the same, but new and improved body” sounds to me dubious at best, heretical at worst. As a matter of logic, if people thought their “next life” on earth (in their own body???) would be better, they wouldn’t want to hang around and wait for their present miserable life to end. Take note of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church
has to say:

2280 “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of he life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”

Notice the singular pronoun “it” referring to one life.

Hello Rookie

I, like you, wish I had talked more with my parents about their lives. The older one grows the more important the past becomes. I have a lot of children (8) and grandchildren (22) and I am certain at least one of them someday will be interested in my past, so I have made a great effort to leave a legacy. I have written my memoirs, a genealogical history of my family and my wife’s family, a history of our family, a book I am writing on the meaning of life, and if I ever get complete co-operation, my wife’s memoir.

There is small chance that science will ever, in the foreseeable future, accept the existence of God. However, that does not mean we cannot challenge their non-belief on their own grounds. And that is what I am attempting to do by utilizing scientific theories in my thread “God Exists, But How?” To challenge the materialist I use the Big Bang theory and the definition of infinity, continuity, and other math concepts to explain how it is possible for God to exist in a “physical” way (physical here meaning ‘within objective reality’). My inspiration for this approach is Teilhard Chardin who viewed matter as having a “without” and a “within” aspect. My thesis is based on the premise that at the ground of reality matter, energy, time and all the other scientific concepts are nothing more than the changing configuration of discrete space governed by a cosmic algorithm (the Mind of God).

I use the Parallel World Theory to address the cynic and the skeptic by providing a tool with which to generate definitive answers to those questions about the existence of evil, suffering, salvation, heaven, hell, etc. It doesn’t take much perusing of this forum to conclude there are plenty of answers to those difficult questions, but very few definitive ones. It seems that in the case of difficult questions, we tend to fall back on “mystery” as the answer; which, of course, suffices for the vast majority of faithful Christians, but draws only smirks from the non-believer. We believers are in a battle with the science-wielding non-believers for the young minds of the human race, so whenever we are able, we should use their weapon to advance our cause. That is all I am attempting to do when invoking the Parallel World theory. You see, if that theory is correct—and it is not accepted by all scientists—then we do exist multiple times and should find ways to use such an opportunity in the interest of faith however dubious it might be.

The word heretical scares me a bit, so I began reading Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Fides Et Ratio, on the relationship between faith and reason. I only got halfway through before my eyes glazed over, but I found nothing in what I read that would give me pause about what I think, in fact, there is a lot of encouragement in that document for individuals to think and reason as long as it gives precedence to faith. Here are just three of the many quotes I gathered:

1. “The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps”. This is to say that with the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith. Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.”

2. Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known”.

3. Moreover, the first absolutely certain truth of our life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. Given this unsettling fact, the search for a full answer is inescapable. Each of us has both the desire and the duty to know the truth of our own destiny. We want to know if death will be the definitive end of our life or if there is something beyond—if it is possible to hope for an after-life or not.

Also, just in case I missed something in the encyclical, I will consult this week end with my son, who happens to be a Monsignor and a canon lawyer. He knows I espouse the parallel world theory and has never issued an interdict on me, but that may only because I am his father. I will pin him down to give me a definitive answer, if there is one.

One of the answers to the Hell question is that it is a separation from God. Separation from God is easily implemented in a multiple world scenario in that there would be no rebirth as I suppose would happen to those who resorted to suicide in order to get to the better world waiting in the next life. Suicide equals finito!

See how easy the answers come?

Have a pleasant spring!
Yppop

 

[rookieonedge]

:bible1:

Hello Rookie
The word heretical scares me a bit, so I began reading Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Fides Et Ratio, on the relationship between faith and reason. I only got halfway through before my eyes glazed over, but I found nothing in what I read that would give me pause about what I think, in fact, there is a lot of encouragement in that document for individuals to think and reason as long as it gives precedence to faith. Here are just three of the many quotes I gathered:

1. “The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps”. This is to say that with the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith. Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.”

2. Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known”.

3. Moreover, the first absolutely certain truth of our life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. Given this unsettling fact, the search for a full answer is inescapable. Each of us has both the desire and the duty to know the truth of our own destiny. We want to know if death will be the definitive end of our life or if there is something beyond—if it is possible to hope for an after-life or not.

Also, just in case I missed something in the encyclical, I will consult this week end with my son, who happens to be a Monsignor and a canon lawyer. He knows I espouse the parallel world theory and has never issued an interdict on me, but that may only because I am his father. I will pin him down to give me a definitive answer, if there is one.

One of the answers to the Hell question is that it is a separation from God. Separation from God is easily implemented in a multiple world scenario in that there would be no rebirth as I suppose would happen to those who resorted to suicide in order to get to the better world waiting in the next life. Suicide equals finito!

See how easy the answers come?

Have a pleasant spring!
Yppop

Hello Yppop!

I read the entire first page of your thread “God exists, But How?” Also, part of the second page. Not having a math/science background, I really can’t do justice attempting to understand it, much less analyze your idea of a Parallel Worlds Theory. It seems that someone else you quoted has the same thinking about a “lattice of discrete points” or s-points immersed in an infinite expanse of nothingness." You mentioned the name Gregory Chaitlin who has lectures on YouTube. So you consider that it is infinistesimal space “gaps” versus space between gaps that are continuous or is it discrete? I fear I’m not asking the right question. (I intend to go back to page 2).

In any case, my question is, do you have a mathematical model formulated for serious mathematicians and scientists? That would give your theory more credibility. On a display table in my home sits the doctoral thesis of one of my sons, who majored in Engineering Physics-Astronautics and recently earned a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. He just took the Professional Engineer exam and was studying a great deal for it. I had no chance to question him. Anyhow, the hardbound copy of his thesis is almost 300 pages of script, equations, graphs, tables, footnotes. . . it’s a wonder! I led him in the direction of math and science since I, myself, would have liked to have gone in that direction. What I mean to say (besides brag about my son) is that the equations solidify the argument when it comes to science. Even when Einstein was sick in bed, he wrote equation after equation on his bedsheets.

It’s a great idea to leave a legacy for your children and grandchildren. But the biggest remembrance for them is how much you love them and the time you spent with them. I don’t know how much they’ll care about theories of creation. (Most people aren’t too interested in that topic).

I read some of Teilhard de Chardin’s writings before I came back to the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, his writings are not judged favorably by the Catholic Church. Not that I think he is on the formidable, now-defunct Index of Forbidden Books. Btw, don’t let me scare you with the word “heretical.” It is not in my province to make such a decision. I just think it’s not altogether reasonable to conclude that we can just slip into a new life in our old body, UNLESS we commit suicide to do so. If I am misunderstanding you, please correct me.

Many blessings,
Rookie

 

[RobbyS]

:bible1:

Hello Yppop!

I read the entire first page of your thread “God exists, But How?” Also, part of the second page. Not having a math/science background, I really can’t do justice attempting to understand it, much less analyze your idea of a Parallel Worlds Theory. It seems that someone else you quoted has the same thinking about a “lattice of discrete points” or s-points immersed in an infinite expanse of nothingness." You mentioned the name Gregory Chaitlin who has lectures on YouTube. So you consider that it is infinistesimal space “gaps” versus space between gaps that are continuous or is it discrete? I fear I’m not asking the right question. (I intend to go back to page 2).

In any case, my question is, do you have a mathematical model formulated for serious mathematicians and scientists? That would give your theory more credibility. On a display table in my home sits the doctoral thesis of one of my sons, who majored in Engineering Physics-Astronautics and recently earned a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. He just took the Professional Engineer exam and was studying a great deal for it. I had no chance to question him. Anyhow, the hardbound copy of his thesis is almost 300 pages of script, equations, graphs, tables, footnotes. . . it’s a wonder! I led him in the direction of math and science since I, myself, would have liked to have gone in that direction. What I mean to say (besides brag about my son) is that the equations solidify the argument when it comes to science. Even when Einstein was sick in bed, he wrote equation after equation on his bedsheets.

It’s a great idea to leave a legacy for your children and grandchildren. But the biggest remembrance for them is how much you love them and the time you spent with them. I don’t know how much they’ll care about theories of creation. (Most people aren’t too interested in that topic).

I read some of Teilhard de Chardin’s writings before I came back to the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, his writings are not judged favorably by the Catholic Church. Not that I think he is on the formidable, now-defunct Index of Forbidden Books. Btw, don’t let me scare you with the word “heretical.” It is not in my province to make such a decision. I just think it’s not altogether reasonable to conclude that we can just slip into a new life in our old body, UNLESS we commit suicide to do so. If I am misunderstanding you, please correct me.

Many blessings,
Rookie

I was skimming through a book by Feynman, and my eyes lit on something that spoke to me. Basically that our knowledge cannot be reduced to a set of differebtial equations. Reductionist materialism falls on the simple grounds that they have never found anything to reduce it to. Bishop Berkeley, the “idealist” may not have disproved materialism, but I have never seen a convincing anwer to the question “What IS matter?” The deeper they go into the subatomic world, the less “there” do they find “there.” The deeper they go into space, the MORE they find “there.” So the interchangeability of matter and energy means thatthe “empty spaces” that so awed Pascal and no “empty” at all but have more “mass” than the galaxies. But at bottom “mass” is simply a ratio. And as to the term “energy.” I see only another way of talking about “place” when they are unsure what “place” means. They dismiss Aristotle’s notion of motion, but then say that, when theytalk to use, that physics is bodies in motion. Only there are no" bodies "and that motion is the measurement of these non- bodies. I trust I have sufficiently shared my confusion.

 

[yppop]

:bible1:

Hello Yppop!

I read the entire first page of your thread “God exists, But How?” Also, part of the second page. Not having a math/science background, I really can’t do justice attempting to understand it, much less analyze your idea of a Parallel Worlds Theory. It seems that someone else you quoted has the same thinking about a “lattice of discrete points” or s-points immersed in an infinite expanse of nothingness." You mentioned the name Gregory Chaitlin who has lectures on YouTube. So you consider that it is infinistesimal space “gaps” versus space between gaps that are continuous or is it discrete? I fear I’m not asking the right question. (I intend to go back to page 2).

In any case, my question is, do you have a mathematical model formulated for serious mathematicians and scientists? That would give your theory more credibility. On a display table in my home sits the doctoral thesis of one of my sons, who majored in Engineering Physics-Astronautics and recently earned a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. He just took the Professional Engineer exam and was studying a great deal for it. I had no chance to question him. Anyhow, the hardbound copy of his thesis is almost 300 pages of script, equations, graphs, tables, footnotes. . . it’s a wonder! I led him in the direction of math and science since I, myself, would have liked to have gone in that direction. What I mean to say (besides brag about my son) is that the equations solidify the argument when it comes to science. Even when Einstein was sick in bed, he wrote equation after equation on his bedsheets.

It’s a great idea to leave a legacy for your children and grandchildren. But the biggest remembrance for them is how much you love them and the time you spent with them. I don’t know how much they’ll care about theories of creation. (Most people aren’t too interested in that topic).

I read some of Teilhard de Chardin’s writings before I came back to the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, his writings are not judged favorably by the Catholic Church. Not that I think he is on the formidable, now-defunct Index of Forbidden Books. Btw, don’t let me scare you with the word “heretical.” It is not in my province to make such a decision. I just think it’s not altogether reasonable to conclude that we can just slip into a new life in our old body, UNLESS we commit suicide to do so. If I am misunderstanding you, please correct me.

Many blessings,
Rookie

Hi Rookie,
You are not alone in having trouble understanding my thesis. If you look at the statistics on my thread, there are 800 visits and only 29 replies and 16 of those are mine. Not a very good record for stimulating discussion. Since the 800 visits indicate an interest, I can only conclude that there is a lack of understanding. The interest in the subject of the nature of reality is also indicated by the number of threads (this one for example).in which the topic comes up.

Here is the basis for my thesis: I contend that the basic structure of reality is two kinds of space: infinite nothingness and discrete space. Infinite nothingness, which has the property of continuous space, existed before discrete space. Therefore, discrete space was derived from the infinite nothingness and first appeared at the big bang. Discrete space consists of points separated by gaps. Infinite nothingness fills those gaps. Infinite nothingness has all the attributes of the transcendent God the Father. It is infinite, formless, immutable, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. (I have arguments to support each of those characteristics). I argue that God the Father is infinite nothingness. One of the beauties of infinity is that you can subtract and infinite set of things from it and still not diminish it one bit. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that there are an infinite number of integers and for every integer you can create an even integer by multiplying each integer by two, so there is an infinite number of even numbers. This means that there are as many even integers as all the integers of which they are only a part. Infinity is a thing in which a part can equal the whole. We come from God without diminishing Him.

In my view, God uses the discrete points (s-points) to create objective reality using the big bang. From all that I have read I infer that the sequence of the big bang is: space, time and energy, and finally matter. It is from space that the other three primary elements of reality are derived. In a sense, discrete space is the ground of objective reality. Matter is nothing more than a distortion of discrete space. This is essentially what string theory, or quantum loop theory, the two most prominent attempts by modern science to get to the ground of reality, imply. Until one of those two theories break out of the mathematical cul-de-sac they are currently trapped in, the accepted theory for the creation of matter is the Higgs particle, which is associated with the Higgs field. The Higgs field incidentally is nothing more than space with a special property. I think the so-called Higgs field is nothing more than discrete space.

Congratulation of raising a son that has the intelligence and tenacity to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. Not an easy task, one that calls for a lot of work and sacrifice. Mechanical engineers have accomplished a lot of amazing things in the manufacturing and aero-space industries. Engineers get scant recognition, so you have a right to boast.

A mathematical formulation is the surest way to establish a thesis as science. The problem is that the variables of the phenomena being modeled have to have consistent relationships with one another. What I am dealing with is the nature of the spiritual impact on the meaning of life, which isn’t susceptible to mathematical formulation. Mathematical formulation that was devised by Newton increases in complexity with depth of the investigation. String theory that attempts to describe the ground of matter is a mathematical nightmare. On the other hand, there is a trend in the literature to look to the algorithm as the modeling tool of the future. The algorithm is the soul of the computer. It does not do away with mathematical formulation, it merely subsumes it. Equations are built into the algorithm as sub-routines. What an algorithm provides is a means for modeling contingency.

I do have a couple of my grandchildren that appear to be interested in my thesis and will listen to me, but I suspect that is out of respect, which counts more to me than genuine interest. I have been supremely fortunate in living within easy access of all my children and grandchildren and spend an inordinate amount of time seeing them, especially the younger ones.

to be contnued—

Yppop

 

[yppop]

:bible1:

Hello Yppop!

I read some of Teilhard de Chardin’s writings before I came back to the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, his writings are not judged favorably by the Catholic Church. Not that I think he is on the formidable, now-defunct Index of Forbidden Books. Btw, don’t let me scare you with the word “heretical.” It is not in my province to make such a decision. I just think it’s not altogether reasonable to conclude that we can just slip into a new life in our old body, UNLESS we commit suicide to do so. If I am misunderstanding you, please correct me.

Many blessings,
Rookie

I read all of Teilhard’s books about 35 years ago. I admire him not only for his magnificent writing, but especially for the depth of his faith. Although admonished by the church, especially his Jesuit superiors, he was obedient and did not publish his books. They were published after his death. He has earned a modicum of toleration by the church without full approval. However his writing is interpreted, you cannot mistake his motivation, namely to argue for the spiritual presence in the world.
You may have misunderstood the suicide issue. I was responding to this statement in your previous post, “As a matter of logic, if people thought their “next life” on earth (in their own body???) would be better, they wouldn’t want to hang around and wait for their present miserable life to end.” I assumed that you meant that people would be more inclined to commit suicide. I believe that suicide MIGHT be an action that would separate one from God, meaning that the one who commits suicide WOULD NOT take part in the resurrection of body (in multiple sequential lifetimes) and life everlasting. On the other hand, suicide for self centered reasons (and I don’t want to get into the morality of suicide, which when you consider the soldier that throws himself on a grenade to save four others commits a form of suicide that is motivated by sacrifice) is generally considered as one of those horribly bad decisions that one would not make in some succeeding lifetime. Thus if Hell is the separation of a soul from God, then a suicide will be cause for separation; but if salvation means the salvation of all souls then the suicide will be given another chance. I don’t know which possibility is implemented or if neither is; I merely have devised a way using acceptable science to explain how. I leave it to the theologians to define which.

My views on morality and Christian living will come in part three of the book I am writing, which to make coherent an comprehensive sense, requires the foundation I am building in part I (Ontology) and part II (Psycho-Biology). Since I have finalized the entire thesis in my notes, I can discuss such issues, but I have my own thread that I need to get back to since people are still visiting it.

Thank you once again for a thought provoking post. I really enjoy those that seek to find the meaning of what I am trying to say. Incidentally, why “rookieonedge”? You may have figured out that Yppop is Poppy backwards, one of my three favorite roles in life; the other two being husband and father.

Take a moment to smell the flowers, one of God’s many gifts to us stupid mortals!
Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

I read all of Teilhard’s books about 35 years ago. I admire him not only for his magnificent writing, but especially for the depth of his faith. Although admonished by the church, especially his Jesuit superiors, he was obedient and did not publish his books. They were published after his death. He has earned a modicum of toleration by the church without full approval. However his writing is interpreted, you cannot mistake his motivation, namely to argue for the spiritual presence in the world.
You may have misunderstood the suicide issue. I was responding to this statement in your previous post, “As a matter of logic, if people thought their “next life” on earth (in their own body???) would be better, they wouldn’t want to hang around and wait for their present miserable life to end.” I assumed that you meant that people would be more inclined to commit suicide. I believe that suicide MIGHT be an action that would separate one from God, meaning that the one who commits suicide WOULD NOT take part in the resurrection of body (in multiple sequential lifetimes) and life everlasting. On the other hand, suicide for self centered reasons (and I don’t want to get into the morality of suicide, which when you consider the soldier that throws himself on a grenade to save four others commits a form of suicide that is motivated by sacrifice) is generally considered as one of those horribly bad decisions that one would not make in some succeeding lifetime. Thus if Hell is the separation of a soul from God, then a suicide will be cause for separation; but if salvation means the salvation of all souls then the suicide will be given another chance. I don’t know which possibility is implemented or if neither is; I merely have devised a way using acceptable science to explain how. I leave it to the theologians to define which.

My views on morality and Christian living will come in part three of the book I am writing, which to make coherent an comprehensive sense, requires the foundation I am building in part I (Ontology) and part II (Psycho-Biology). Since I have finalized the entire thesis in my notes, I can discuss such issues, but I have my own thread that I need to get back to since people are still visiting it.

Thank you once again for a thought provoking post. I really enjoy those that seek to find the meaning of what I am trying to say. Incidentally, why “rookieonedge”? You may have figured out that Yppop is Poppy backwards, one of my three favorite roles in life; the other two being husband and father.

Take a moment to smell the flowers, one of God’s many gifts to us stupid mortals!
Yppop

An interesting endeavor, that book you’re writing. The research for it must be quite exciting. Please let us know when it is published.

jd