"Conservation of Matter" = Heresy?

[Neil_Anthony]

Here is the problem I see with this. God exists outside of time. You are binding him to time and simply saying that he sees it all at once. Think of it this way.

You and I are not bound by height or depth. We are free to move up and down in space. Does this mean that at every moment we see all possible ways we could possibly be in this space or see this space from every possible perspective. No. This is how God sees time.

I think you’re placing a limitation on God. We have a limitation with respect to up and down - we can only be at one place at a time. God is not limited to being at one place in space at a time. And I don’t think He’s limited so that he can’t view many or all points of time simultaneously. Isn’t that what it means to exist “outside of time”?

Additionally if we take your premise of how God sees, and does, things out of the material and apply it to other things it completely looses credibility. For, if everything happens as God wills and God wills everything from the start to the finish. This would mean that no one has free will, we only have God’s will. Thus you are saying that God wills people to be sinful and this is against His nature. So, if God has made laws that govern the properties of humans and allows those laws to keep acting even when we utilize our free will to work against Him, why is it so hard to believe that He made laws which govern the properties of matter and He simply allows those laws to keep working (except in the case of miracles which is why they are miracles)? I mean why would someone powerful enough to create everything make more work for themselves? Isn’t it more reasonable to believe that He interacts to create miracles and does not interact to create stasis?

This is what makes the human soul the “pinnacle of creation” - God has allowed us to share in his power of controlling matter. When we make a choice, our soul interacts through our body (presumably through the brain) to affect physical objects. We’re acting like God does when He creates, except we’re limited in our foresight as to the ramifications of our choices.

For the sake of this discussion, it might be better to think of human beings with free will as a special case, and just consider other physical things, like atoms and planets and rocks.

 

[Drawmack]

This is what makes the human soul the “pinnacle of creation” - God has allowed us to share in his power of controlling matter. When we make a choice, our soul interacts through our body (presumably through the brain) to affect physical objects. We’re acting like God does when He creates, except we’re limited in our foresight as to the ramifications of our choices.

For the sake of this discussion, it might be better to think of human beings with free will as a special case, and just consider other physical things, like atoms and planets and rocks.

Why only consider other things? Why limit the scope, so that your definition works? But, okay I’ll play along.

Okay you postulate that, when God gave man free will this was done so that we could share in his power of creation. So, our free will is what allows us to create. Well, indeed since man’s beginning he has been inventing items that allow him to work more efficiently. I submit for articles of evidence the wheel, the lever, and the fulcrum. So, why would you assume (or ask anyone else to) that when God creates he does not also do this in the most efficient manner available to him. Thus he creates laws which the objects he creates abide by. Then once created the objects can simply operate according to these laws unless he intercedes directly. This seems to be much more efficient than him interacting directly at every moment. So, if our invention, as you seem to be saying, is a kind of imperfect mirror of God’s invention, why would there be a difference at the very core of why and how God and man invent? Thus, it makes sense to have these laws and it is illogical not to have them.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Why only consider other things? Why limit the scope, so that your definition works? But, okay I’ll play along.

I just think its a different question for a different thread, and I find people get easily distracted in online forums, and it might derail the conversation, thats all.

But thanks for commenting - your question below is something I was dwelling on the other day, glad you brought it up:

Okay you postulate that, when God gave man free will this was done so that we could share in his power of creation. So, our free will is what allows us to create. Well, indeed since man’s beginning he has been inventing items that allow him to work more efficiently. I submit for articles of evidence the wheel, the lever, and the fulcrum. So, why would you assume (or ask anyone else to) that when God creates he does not also do this in the most efficient manner available to him. Thus he creates laws which the objects he creates abide by. Then once created the objects can simply operate according to these laws unless he intercedes directly. This seems to be much more efficient than him interacting directly at every moment. So, if our invention, as you seem to be saying, is a kind of imperfect mirror of God’s invention, why would there be a difference at the very core of why and how God and man invent? Thus, it makes sense to have these laws and it is illogical not to have them.

Maybe I just need someone like you to explain this to me… but was struggling to imagine how the way man creates can apply to how God creates. Let me explain:

To a person, there’s a huge difference between moving objects around with our hand, and making an object that moves on its own. A popular example is a clock. Instead of manually moving the arms around the clock to show the time, we put a mechanism in it that makes it move automatically. We can prove that its automatic by showing that 1) we don’t touch the clock and it keeps moving and 2) we can forget about the clock, even go away, and when we come back we see evidence that it has been running, because it kept time. So we can easily tell the difference between something manual and something automatic.

Naturally, we tend to anthropomorphize God. We think of him like a man, but a really powerful and smart man. So we try to imagine him building the universe like we would make a clock. And we assume that, being as smart as He is, he would make the universe automatic, not manual.

But, lets apply our tests for manual vs automatic to God’s creation. Test #1 says that if the object keeps moving when we’re not touching it, it must be automatic, not manual. How do we apply this to God? God does not have fingers to move objects around, he has an omnipotent will that causes things to be. He can will that an atom exist, and He can will that it is at one location or another location, and He can will its velocity. So, the metaphorical equivalent to the watchmakers finger is God’s will. To test whether God’s creation is manual or automatic, God must remove his will for the existence and location of the object, and see if it continues to exist.

But, theology tells us that God holds creation in existence. It is God’s will that keeps things existing. If God removes His will, the object will disappear. If God no longer wills for an object to behave according to the laws of gravity, it will no longer behave in that way. So, this test shows that God’s creation is equivalent to a human inventor’s manual clock, not an automatic clock.

I won’t bother with #2, since at this point I think its extraneous.

Does that help? Did I make a mistake somewhere? Is there some other test we can apply that would work?

 

[Drawmack]

Maybe I just need someone like you to explain this to me… but was struggling to imagine how the way man creates can apply to how God creates. Let me explain:

Thank you for the compliment. Hopefully it is not undue praise.

To a person, there’s a huge difference between moving objects around with our hand, and making an object that moves on its own. A popular example is a clock. Instead of manually moving the arms around the clock to show the time, we put a mechanism in it that makes it move automatically. We can prove that its automatic by showing that 1) we don’t touch the clock and it keeps moving and 2) we can forget about the clock, even go away, and when we come back we see evidence that it has been running, because it kept time. So we can easily tell the difference between something manual and something automatic.

Okay, you are good here.

Naturally, we tend to anthropomorphize God. We think of him like a man, but a really powerful and smart man. So we try to imagine him building the universe like we would make a clock. And we assume that, being as smart as He is, he would make the universe automatic, not manual.

I agree, I see this all the time. In fact, I see it in this post. I’ll explain below.

But, lets apply our tests for manual vs automatic to God’s creation. Test #1 says that if the object keeps moving when we’re not touching it, it must be automatic, not manual. How do we apply this to God? God does not have fingers to move objects around, he has an omnipotent will that causes things to be. He can will that an atom exist, and He can will that it is at one location or another location, and He can will its velocity. So, the metaphorical equivalent to the watchmakers finger is God’s will. To test whether God’s creation is manual or automatic, God must remove his will for the existence and location of the object, and see if it continues to exist.

But, theology tells us that God holds creation in existence. It is God’s will that keeps things existing. If God removes His will, the object will disappear. If God no longer wills for an object to behave according to the laws of gravity, it will no longer behave in that way. So, this test shows that God’s creation is equivalent to a human inventor’s manual clock, not an automatic clock.

While I agree that God’s will is the metaphorical equivalent to the watchmakers finger it is also much more than that. As you state, God’s will is omnipotent; God’s will is unlimited in its power. Thus while God’s will is analogous, or metaphorical, to the watchmakers fingers it is also much more than that. Let’s stick with your example of a clock to demonstrate this.

The watchmaker makes an automatic clock. We know that this clock is automatic because it keeps moving when the watchmaker is not touching it. While this is true, the clock also has a power source, this power source is what keeps it running. Thus while the watchmaker is not paying direct attention to the clock he must take care to maintain its power source or the clock will stop working. Since God’s will is omnipotent we can look at it as both the watchmakers fingers and the power source. When God was creating the laws and the matter, his will was acting metaphorically to the watchmakers fingers. Thus his direct and intentional intervention was necessary to bring matter into existence and create the rules the governed it. However, it maintains existence so long as it has access to this power source – God’s will. For the Universe to fall out of existence would, once again, require God’s direct and intentional intervention. He would have to remove his will, which is metaphorical to unplugging the clock. Does that make sense or should my bum be sore from all this talking it’s doing?

I won’t bother with #2, since at this point I think its extraneous.

I agree that it is best to consider one topic at a time. If you, at some point, feel satiated with #1 we can pick back up a discussion of #2.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

While I agree that God’s will is the metaphorical equivalent to the watchmakers finger it is also much more than that. As you state, God’s will is omnipotent; God’s will is unlimited in its power. Thus while God’s will is analogous, or metaphorical, to the watchmakers fingers it is also much more than that. Let’s stick with your example of a clock to demonstrate this.

Okay. A rule of good communication is that the person listening should repeat back what they heard to make sure both understand. In this case I would like to rephrase what you said to use tenses that make more sense from the perspective of God, who lives outside of time. You used past and future tenses, which I don’t think apply from God’s perspective. Unfortunately, English doesn’t have a tense for “all-time-is-equally-present” so I’ll just use the present tense in bold for that.

The watchmaker makes an automatic clock. We know that this clock is automatic because it keeps moving when the watchmaker is not touching it. While this is true, the clock also has a power source, this power source is what keeps it running. Thus while the watchmaker is not paying direct attention to the clock he must take care to maintain its power source or the clock will stop working. Since God’s will is omnipotent we can look at it as both the watchmakers fingers and the power source. When God was creating the laws and the matter, his will was acting metaphorically to the watchmakers fingers.

Okay, I follow you so far.

Thus his direct and intentional intervention was necessary to bring matter into existence and create the rules the governed it. However, it maintains existence so long as it has access to this power source – God’s will. For the Universe to fall out of existence would, once again, require God’s direct and intentional intervention. He would have to remove his will, which is metaphorical to unplugging the clock. Does that make sense or should my bum be sore from all this talking it’s doing?

Well, I’ll repeat each sentence and you can tell me if I understood…

Thus his direct and intentional intervention was necessary to bring matter into existence and create the rules the governed it.

God intervenes in a way that is necessary for matter to exist (not sure if this is regular present tense exist, or all-time-present-tense exist?). God intervenes in a necessary way and creates rules that govern matter.

However, it maintains existence so long as it has access to this power source – God’s will.

However, matter exists (regular present tense of exist) only at points in time where the power source (God’s will) allows it to exist.

For the Universe to fall out of existence would, once again, require God’s direct and intentional intervention.

The Universe does not exist at points in time where God’s will does not allow it to exist.

He would have to remove his will, which is metaphorical to unplugging the clock.

God’s will would have to be that it exist at one point in time and not exist at a later point in time. The boundary between the period of time where God’s will is that it exist, and the period of time where God’s will is that it not exist, is metaphorical to unplugging the clock.

I agree that it is best to consider one topic at a time. If you, at some point, feel satiated with #1 we can pick back up a discussion of #2.

Okay, if I understand what you were saying when I repeated it back, then I guess we’re ready?

 

[Drawmack]

Okay. A rule of good communication is that the person listening should repeat back what they heard to make sure both understand. In this case I would like to rephrase what you said to use tenses that make more sense from the perspective of God, who lives outside of time. You used past and future tenses, which I don’t think apply from God’s perspective. Unfortunately, English doesn’t have a tense for “all-time-is-equally-present” so I’ll just use the present tense in bold for that.

I think the tense you’re looking for is either present perfect or future perfect. However, I used the tensing I did not to limit God but to explain how God can interact with things at a specific point in time even though he, himself, is outside of time. Kind of like you being outside your wallet but being able to put a dollar into it or take one out. This action does not bind you to the wallet, but it does effect the wallet. Does that make sense?

Well, I’ll repeat each sentence and you can tell me if I understood…

Good idea.

God intervenes in a way that is necessary for matter to exist (not sure if this is regular present tense exist, or all-time-present-tense exist?). God intervenes in a necessary way and creates rules that govern matter.

Actually I do not know if this is correct. See, God is outside of time, but he can interact with things at a specific time. Think of it this way, Jesus was born on a specific day, at a specific time, in a specific place. Only the people present on the specific day, at that specific time, in that specific place could witness this event. However, God is not bound by time so he can revisit the birth of his Son anytime he wants to simply by focusing on the moment in time when that happened. Thus your rephrasing is a little off.

God intervened in a way that was necessary for matter to come into existence. Now, using the past tense here does not imply that God is bound by time. He can go revisit that moment at anytime he chooses. However, this interaction happened at a specific point in time. Kind of like the miracles in the Bible, you can’t go to those locations and see them happen today, but that doesn’t mean that God didn’t make them happen.

However, matter exists (regular present tense of exist) only at points in time where the power source (God’s will) allows it to exist.

This I agree with as written. However, I would further explain that this instance of God’s will, or interaction, is different than the instance of God’s will, or interaction, in the previous section. Kind of like if raising my hand vs. my heart beating they are both bodily actions, but completely different types of bodily actions requiring the usage of different parts of my body and brain. Does that make sense?

The Universe does not exist at points in time where God’s will does not allow it to exist.

Agree as written.

God’s will would have to be that it exist at one point in time and not exist at a later point in time. The boundary between the period of time where God’s will is that it exist, and the period of time where God’s will is that it not exist, is metaphorical to unplugging the clock.

I agree with this as written, but do refer you back to my earlier explanation about different manifestations of God’s will.

Okay, if I understand what you were saying when I repeated it back, then I guess we’re ready?

See above explanations and proceed accordingly.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

God intervenes in a way that is necessary for matter to exist (not sure if this is regular present tense exist, or all-time-present-tense exist?). God intervenes in a necessary way and creates rules that govern matter.

It seems that your sentences describe things from the human perspective. I’m trying to describe things from God’s perspective outside of time. So from that perspective, we would not say “God intervened” but “God intervenes at time x”.

Also, from God’s perspective, He wills that something exist at certain times, and not exist at other times. But you wanted to describe some intervention of God at the boundary time between the period of existence and the period of non-existence. I’m not clear on that yet. Can you try to phrase it from God’s perspective? I’m talking about this sentence:

For the Universe to fall out of existence would, once again, require God’s direct and intentional intervention.

 

[Drawmack]

It seems that your sentences describe things from the human perspective. I’m trying to describe things from God’s perspective outside of time. So from that perspective, we would not say “God intervened” but “God intervenes at time x”.

I think it’s just a game of semantics, but okay I can agree to that.

Also, from God’s perspective, He wills that something exist at certain times, and not exist at other times. But you wanted to describe some intervention of God at the boundary time between the period of existence and the period of non-existence. I’m not clear on that yet. Can you try to phrase it from God’s perspective? I’m talking about this sentence:

Just as God intervenes and some time X to create the laws that govern the physical properties of the Universe He intervenes again at another time Y to undo these laws.

At all time B, such that X <= B <= Y God intervenes by allowing a stasis of His intervention at time X.

Does that makes sense or should I pull out my Discrete Math books for some proofs?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think it’s just a game of semantics, but okay I can agree to that.

Just as God intervenes and some time X to create the laws that govern the physical properties of the Universe He intervenes again at another time Y to undo these laws.

At all time B, such that X <= B <= Y God intervenes by allowing a stasis of His intervention at time X.

Does that makes sense or should I pull out my Discrete Math books for some proofs?

That’s excellent! See, according to how you phrased it, God is interves at every instant between X and Y to make the physical properties keep working.

So how is that different from if God intervenes at every instant between X and Y to make the objects behave according to the physical properties? Is there really a difference?

 

[Drawmack]

That’s excellent! See, according to how you phrased it, God is interves at every instant between X and Y to make the physical properties keep working.

So how is that different from if God intervenes at every instant between X and Y to make the objects behave according to the physical properties? Is there really a difference?

Yes there is a difference. I knew this is where you were trying to go with refusing cases and taking things from “God’s perspective”, which is just a tad presumptuous for any human to attempt.

At time X, God directly, substantially, and intentionally intervenes to create matter. He plugs the clock in.

At time Y, God directly, substantially, and intentionally intervenes to destroy matter. He unplugs the clock.

At all times B, such that X < B < Y, God simply allows his willed creation to maintain stasis. He doesn’t mess around with the clock’s plug.

Now are you ready to quit trying to trap me with games of semantics?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes there is a difference. I knew this is where you were trying to go with refusing cases and taking things from “God’s perspective”, which is just a tad presumptuous for any human to attempt.

It’s presumptuous to try to actually imagine what its like to be God, but I think we have the ability to imagine existing beyond time, and to phrase things that way. Thanks for going along to where I was trying to go! Not sure what you mean by “refusing cases”.

At time X, God directly, substantially, and intentionally intervenes to create matter. He plugs the clock in.

At time Y, God directly, substantially, and intentionally intervenes to destroy matter. He unplugs the clock.

At all times B, such that X < B < Y, God simply allows his willed creation to maintain stasis. He doesn’t mess around with the clock’s plug.

I’m just not sure about the word “stasis”. Creation doesn’t remain in stasis, it moves and changes. So, you would have to say something more like “for every time B, such that X < B < Y, God wills specific locations for the created created particles. The positions at each time are described by the following mathematical formulae: (physical laws here)”

Now are you ready to quit trying to trap me with games of semantics?

I wasn’t trying to trap you, I was just trying to show you what got me thinking along these lines, wondering if you would find it compelling too.

 

[Drawmack]

I’m just not sure about the word “stasis”. Creation doesn’t remain in stasis, it moves and changes. So, you would have to say something more like “for every time B, such that X < B < Y, God wills specific locations for the created created particles. The positions at each time are described by the following mathematical formulae: (physical laws here)”

At time X God willfully, intentionally, and directly intercedes creating both laws to govern physical objects and the physical objects themselves.

At time Y, such that Y > X, God willfully, intentionally, and directly intercedes by destroying both laws to govern physical objects and the physical objects themselves.

At all times B such that X < B < Y God allows the laws he creates at time X to operate and control the matter he also created at time X.

The distinction here is that at all time B, God is not willfully, intentionally, and directly controlling things. He is simply allowing his laws to keep doing their job. Except for when he does directly intercede creating a miracle. (Let’s avoid the temptation of a fourth pseudo-mathematical axiom to cover this shall we?)

If you’ll allow me to digress into an analogy. Picture a track with a ball placed on it. This fictional track and ball produce no friction when the ball is moving on the track. With the lack of friction, once a force acts on the ball it will keep moving until another force acts on the ball to stop it from moving. Now let’s say that this track runs in a circle around you. You give the ball a push, at let’s say time X, and it begins rolling on the track. Some time later, let’s say time Y, you grab the ball and stop if from rolling on the track. At every instance between when you started the ball rolling and when you stopped, let’s say all times B, it was subject to your will in order to keep moving on the track. For, at any point you could have stopped it, but you willed not to.

As you can see from this example, at all times B you will was required for the ball to keep going. For, if you have removed your will for it to keep moving you would have stopped it. However, it did not require your direct intervention to keep going you simply had to do nothing so that it would keep going. This is how I view God’s will keeping the Universe in existence.

I wasn’t trying to trap you, I was just trying to show you what got me thinking along these lines, wondering if you would find it compelling too.

Sorry for misunderstanding your intent.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

At time X God willfully, intentionally, and directly intercedes creating both laws to govern physical objects and the physical objects themselves.

At time Y, such that Y > X, God willfully, intentionally, and directly intercedes by destroying both laws to govern physical objects and the physical objects themselves.

At all times B such that X < B < Y God allows the laws he creates at time X to operate and control the matter he also created at time X.

The distinction here is that at all time B, God is not willfully, intentionally, and directly controlling things. He is simply allowing his laws to keep doing their job. Except for when he does directly intercede creating a miracle. (Let’s avoid the temptation of a fourth pseudo-mathematical axiom to cover this shall we?)

So are you saying that the laws are actually things that God created with the ability to move particles around? I assumed the ability was within the particles themselves. Either way, try to imagine how this would work. Does the law or particle calculate where it wants to be at the next instant, then ask God to move it to that location? Or does it move itself, and if it moves itself, by what mechanism does it do that? Also, how does it perform the calculation?

I think it would have to be moved by God to get there, because neither a “law” or a particle has any apparent way to perform calculations or move itself around.

If you’ll allow me to digress into an analogy. Picture a track with a ball placed on it. This fictional track and ball produce no friction when the ball is moving on the track. With the lack of friction, once a force acts on the ball it will keep moving until another force acts on the ball to stop it from moving. Now let’s say that this track runs in a circle around you. You give the ball a push, at let’s say time X, and it begins rolling on the track. Some time later, let’s say time Y, you grab the ball and stop if from rolling on the track. At every instance between when you started the ball rolling and when you stopped, let’s say all times B, it was subject to your will in order to keep moving on the track. For, at any point you could have stopped it, but you willed not to.

As you can see from this example, at all times B you will was required for the ball to keep going. For, if you have removed your will for it to keep moving you would have stopped it. However, it did not require your direct intervention to keep going you simply had to do nothing so that it would keep going. This is how I view God’s will keeping the Universe in existence.

I think this is an equivocation on “God’s will”. Sure, you might will that the ball keep rolling, but there is a difference between a will that results in action (setting the ball in motion) and a passive will to not interfere. When we say that God wills things into existence, its not the same as saying that God passively allows things to exist - its a direct will to cause something to happen.

Sorry for misunderstanding your intent.

No problem. BTW, have you studied philosophy and/or theology? I’ve just taken a few philosophy classes.

 

[Drawmack]

So are you saying that the laws are actually things that God created with the ability to move particles around? I assumed the ability was within the particles themselves. Either way, try to imagine how this would work. Does the law or particle calculate where it wants to be at the next instant, then ask God to move it to that location? Or does it move itself, and if it moves itself, by what mechanism does it do that? Also, how does it perform the calculation?

I think it would have to be moved by God to get there, because neither a “law” or a particle has any apparent way to perform calculations or move itself around.

God crated the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc. Then he created matter such that it obeys these laws he created. (The creation may haven been simultaneous or whatever. The important thing is that he created the laws and the matter which obeys them.) The particles do not have to be able to do math to obey the laws they are designed to obey. Just like the server does not have to be able to program itself to post this message in the forum. I find it hard to defend against what you have said above further because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I am probably misreading it, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m having trouble making sense of it.

I think this is an equivocation on “God’s will”. Sure, you might will that the ball keep rolling, but there is a difference between a will that results in action (setting the ball in motion) and a passive will to not interfere. When we say that God wills things into existence, its not the same as saying that God passively allows things to exist - its a direct will to cause something to happen.

I am not sure what you mean by an “equivocation on ‘God’s will’”? It was an analogy between the will of the person controlling the ball and God’s will. Analogy is often useful in demonstrating a point.

This is what I have been saying all along. He wills things to exist at a specific point in time – like the person with the ball starting it rolling. Then after that point in time he passively allows them to keep existing – like the person not stopping the ball. Thus what God does at every moment that material exists is not the same as when he did when he created it – just like it is not the same for the person with the ball.

No problem. BTW, have you studied philosophy and/or theology? I’ve just taken a few philosophy classes.

As for formal study I have had two, collegiate level, philosophy classes. However, my ex was a philosophy minor and I helped her study for that by reading her texts and helping with / proofing her papers. We had some very interesting discussions on Acquinas’ work. As for theology I really do not have any formal training but I read collegiate level texts on the topic for fun.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I find it hard to defend against what you have said above further because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I’ll try to organize my thoughts some more and post again when its clearer, sorry

 

[Drawmack]

I’ll try to organize my thoughts some more and post again when its clearer, sorry

Thank you, I really am enjoying this dialogue a great deal. It is nice to talk to someone about these things without it becoming personal. I look forward to your restatement.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

At time X God willfully, intentionally, and directly intercedes creating both laws to govern physical objects and the physical objects themselves.

At time Y, such that Y > X, God willfully, intentionally, and directly intercedes by destroying both laws to govern physical objects and the physical objects themselves.

At all times B such that X < B < Y God allows the laws he creates at time X to operate and control the matter he also created at time X.

The distinction here is that at all time B, God is not willfully, intentionally, and directly controlling things. He is simply allowing his laws to keep doing their job. Except for when he does directly intercede creating a miracle. (Let’s avoid the temptation of a fourth pseudo-mathematical axiom to cover this shall we?)

If you’ll allow me to digress into an analogy. Picture a track with a ball placed on it. This fictional track and ball produce no friction when the ball is moving on the track. With the lack of friction, once a force acts on the ball it will keep moving until another force acts on the ball to stop it from moving. Now let’s say that this track runs in a circle around you. You give the ball a push, at let’s say time X, and it begins rolling on the track. Some time later, let’s say time Y, you grab the ball and stop if from rolling on the track. At every instance between when you started the ball rolling and when you stopped, let’s say all times B, it was subject to your will in order to keep moving on the track. For, at any point you could have stopped it, but you willed not to.

As you can see from this example, at all times B you will was required for the ball to keep going. For, if you have removed your will for it to keep moving you would have stopped it. However, it did not require your direct intervention to keep going you simply had to do nothing so that it would keep going. This is how I view God’s will keeping the Universe in existence.

There are some things that struck me about what you said, and leave me wondering if its even possible for humans to know the answer to this:

1. You seem to think of the “laws of nature” as actual things created by God, rather than an abstract idea that exists in people’s minds.
2. The analogies we are using don’t really help, because we put our own pre-suppositions into the analogies. When I think about your example of a person pushing a ball that goes in a circle, I imagine God moving the ball around in the circle while that person watches. It breaks down when you try to then apply it to God.
3. The person in the analogy stops pushing the ball and it continues… I can’t understand how to apply that to God. What does it mean for God to stop specifically willing the motion of the particle? If God wills that such and such a law continue to operate, that seems to me identical to God willing the exact specific motion of the object at each instant, since God is omniscient. It is only our human limitation and weakness that allows us to “will that the ball keep moving” without actually knowing exactly where it will be at each instant and willing that it be at that exact location.

 

[Drawmack]

1. You seem to think of the “laws of nature” as actual things created by God, rather than an abstract idea that exists in people’s minds.

They are actual laws created by God. There is nothing in man’s mind that governs the way atoms and molecules work. But, we know that if we apply math we will be able to predict how the atoms and molecules will react because they obey laws. These are observable outcomes which are able to be predicted by applying the mathematical law. This is not something in man’s mind.

1. The analogies we are using don’t really help, because we put our own pre-suppositions into the analogies. When I think about your example of a person pushing a ball that goes in a circle, I imagine God moving the ball around in the circle while that person watches. It breaks down when you try to then apply it to God.

The point is that there is direct interaction of the will and passive interaction of the will. God utilizes a passive interaction of His will to keep things in existence. When using an analogy you cannot place the items one is speaking analogously to within the analogy. In my analogy the person was analogous to God, therefore you cannot just stick God into the analogy and say see it doesn’t work. But here are some questions that might help.

1. Is man capable of exercising will both passively and actively? (In other words if a person allows something to happen instead of stopping it is that an exercise of the person’s will?)
2. Would it be logical to think that God is incapable of applying His will in all the ways that a man is? (In other words, if a man can passively exercise his will why can’t God?)
3. When man invents, creates, does he do so in what he perceives to be the most efficient manner possible?
4. Being that we are created in God’s image why is it logical to assume that God would not also create the same way?

1. The person in the analogy stops pushing the ball and it continues… I can’t understand how to apply that to God. What does it mean for God to stop specifically willing the motion of the particle? If God wills that such and such a law continue to operate, that seems to me identical to God willing the exact specific motion of the object at each instant, since God is omniscient. It is only our human limitation and weakness that allows us to “will that the ball keep moving” without actually knowing exactly where it will be at each instant and willing that it be at that exact location.

I’m sorry, but if you can’t see the difference in an entity simply watching something happen without stopping it and this same entity interacting to keep the thing happening then there is no point in talking to you until you achieve this understanding. I recommend buying some toys geared at people around age three and playing with them until you understand how your actions create reactions and how you can watch the reactions without creating them.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

They are actual laws created by God. There is nothing in man’s mind that governs the way atoms and molecules work. But, we know that if we apply math we will be able to predict how the atoms and molecules will react because they obey laws. These are observable outcomes which are able to be predicted by applying the mathematical law. This is not something in man’s mind.

It could be something in man’s mind, in fact I’ve always just assumed it is. These “laws” are ideas, theories, concepts. They are sentences that describe patterns we observe in the universe. Sentences are things that exist in our mind.

The point is that there is direct interaction of the will and passive interaction of the will. God utilizes a passive interaction of His will to keep things in existence.

That makes it very clear but…
I don’t agree that God has a passive will analogous to the person in your example. The person’s will becomes passive for 2 reasons 1) ignorance of where exactly the ball will be at any exact time and 2) God moves the ball for him.

I’m sorry, but if you can’t see the difference in an entity simply watching something happen without stopping it and this same entity interacting to keep the thing happening then there is no point in talking to you until you achieve this understanding. I recommend buying some toys geared at people around age three and playing with them until you understand how your actions create reactions and how you can watch the reactions without creating them.

WHat I tried to explain, is that those toys keep moving after i push them only because I think God is moving them. So the analogy doesn’t help me understand how that would work for God. Unless there was a meta-God who moves his particles arround while God was thinking about other things, which of course is anathema!

 

[Drawmack]

It could be something in man’s mind, in fact I’ve always just assumed it is. These “laws” are ideas, theories, concepts. They are sentences that describe patterns we observe in the universe. Sentences are things that exist in our mind.

How much science (specifically Chemistry) have you studied? Please do not quote proper scientific terminology when it is being used properly. That is just a silly tactic used by people to artificially weaken their opponents position which serves only to make them look less informed.

These laws are a derived mathematical formula which describes the process to the point where we can use the mathematical model to determine what will happen before we ever perform an experiment. Thus they are mans way of describing God’s law. God created the law.

The way I look at it is this. The more deeply we look at and understand God’s creation the more marvelous he becomes. God is the perfect creator who creates perfectly. I am having trouble understanding why you find it logical to think that he would create in such a way that his creation cannot sustain itself? Man seeks to create in a way that his creation requires the least maintenance possible. However, man is not perfect so some maintenance is always necessary. Why would God not also seek to create in such a manner that his creation needs as little maintenance as possible? And, being that God is perfect why wouldn’t this minimum actually be no maintenance?

Please, specifically, address these questions in your reply.

That makes it very clear but…
I don’t agree that God has a passive will analogous to the person in your example. The person’s will becomes passive for 2 reasons 1) ignorance of where exactly the ball will be at any exact time and 2) God moves the ball for him.

Let me make sure I understand this. Are you saying that God created man with both a passive and active will, but God himself does not have a passive will? How does that make sense?

Additionally, the man is not ignorant of exactly where the ball will be. He could know exactly the speed of the ball and use a simply formula to determine its position at any point in time.

Finally, stop putting God into the analogy. I am speaking of God analogously. Within the confines of the analogy the man is God. Inserting God into the analogy is relying on a logical fallacy.

WHat I tried to explain, is that those toys keep moving after i push them only because I think God is moving them. So the analogy doesn’t help me understand how that would work for God. Unless there was a meta-God who moves his particles arround while God was thinking about other things, which of course is anathema!

I am glad that you caught the humor in that, I was worried you might take offense.