"Conservation of Matter" = Heresy?

[JDaniel]

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.

Neil:

You’re over-thinking this thing. Particles have their own electromagnetic characteristics and exhibit a force, called electromagnetic force, which exhibits when in the neighborhood of other charged particles. It is this force that causes particles to move apart or bind (move) together into molecules, for example. When God set all of this into motion, He established that particles would possess these electromagnetic forces so that they would bind together into objects of matter and spread apart into stuff like air.

If you want to call electromagnetic forces some kind of dictum, law or, command, that’s fine. Studying matter and energy, physicists have found that these things exist and because they exist with an extremely reliable regularity, they can be, and, are, called “laws”. To say that God created the laws is the same thing as saying that He put the order (commands, laws, or regularity) into nature such that these laws could be found and understood by the minds of men - and women.

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 suppose so. Mankind really does not know how intertwined God’s Will and nature is. I rather think He does not take His finger and toy with particles like a person might flick a crumb off a table onto the floor. Instead, He wills the entire mechanism.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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 Please do not quote proper scientific terminology when it is being used properly.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.

I took a few chemistry classes in university as part of the engineering program. I’m not sure what you mean about weakening a position with proper scientific terminology…

I understand physics and chemistry. I’m not denying any of the findings of those sciences. I accept that the laws of physics are valid and useful. I’m questioning them at a deeper level, looking at their transcendent causes and significance, not questioning whether the science is valid.

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.

Yes, they are formulas or mathematical models. Both of those are just ideas, not real things. The ideas are correct - what I don’t get is that you seem to think of them as a “thing” that is “created”, like a physical object. If by “creating the law” you just mean that God “commanded that this law be followed” that would clear up the misunderstanding. But it sounds like you’re saying the law is some entity of its own that goes around making sure material things do what they’re supposed to - which is a new idea to me that I don’t accept.

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?

People create things that don’t need maintenance because we are limited - we want to spend our time on other things, and we’re lazy, we don’t want to work. Those aren’t concerns for God.

Also, I think its part of Catholic theology. God “holds creation in existence”. You seem to be saying that this just means that God created the universe once, and then passively wills that it keep going. But there is more to the theology than that - a simple metaphor is the picture of God holding the world in his hands… if God stops holding it, it falls and will disappear. A more advanced explanation is that God’s love sustains creation in existence, each particle is at each moment held in existence by God’s love.

Maybe this is all a misunderstanding of Catholic theology, but I would need to see some quotes from saints or theologians to be convinced.

Please, specifically, address these questions in your reply.

I hope I addressed them all?

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?

Yes, I’m saying that a passive will is a weakness. It’s what happens when a lesser being has a will but can’t think of too many things at once, and can’t do everything at once. Since God is all-powerful, his will is perfect, therefore always active, not passive.

There are things that God can’t do - God can’t be stupid, God can’t be evil, God can’t get confused, etc. I think having a passive will falls into this category.

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.

That’s true. But the other point still stands - the man isn’t capable of actually moving the ball perfectly according to some formula, at least not while doing other things. FOr example, he couldn’t do that with two balls at the same 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.

But how can I not put God into the analogy? The analogy contains the subject in question - how material things work. You’re doing the same thing by not putting God into the analogy - you’re presuming your conclusion (that objects move without God’s direct involvement). We’re both making the same mistake, and its unavoidable. I’m starting to think this problem just isn’t solvable by the human mind.

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

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil:

You’re over-thinking this thing. Particles have their own electromagnetic characteristics and exhibit a force, called electromagnetic force, which exhibits when in the neighborhood of other charged particles. It is this force that causes particles to move apart or bind (move) together into molecules, for example. When God set all of this into motion, He established that particles would possess these electromagnetic forces so that they would bind together into objects of matter and spread apart into stuff like air.

If you want to call electromagnetic forces some kind of dictum, law or, command, that’s fine. Studying matter and energy, physicists have found that these things exist and because they exist with an extremely reliable regularity, they can be, and, are, called “laws”. To say that God created the laws is the same thing as saying that He put the order (commands, laws, or regularity) into nature such that these laws could be found and understood by the minds of men - and women.

Or, could it also mean that God decided to move particles around in a highly regular fashion that corresponds to those laws?

 

[JDaniel]

Or, could it also mean that God decided to move particles around in a highly regular fashion that corresponds to those laws?

True; but, I am guessing that He would not have allowed those laws to come into being serendipitously. I should think that, knowing everything, He embedded the mechanism into the particles of matter. If you’re saying that the mechanism or, laws, prove God, you’re right.

jd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

True; but, I am guessing that He would not have allowed those laws to come into being serendipitously. I should think that, knowing everything, He embedded the mechanism into the particles of matter. If you’re saying that the mechanism or, laws, prove God, you’re right.

jd

Well… my next question would be, how does that work, how can God give an electron and a proton the ability to move towards each other “on their own”? How do they propel themselves? How do they know where the other particle is?

But, I realize that question is unanswerable, and so isn’t fair. I guess its just a mystery?

I can’t reconcile the idea of a particle moving “on its own” with an omnipotent God. The way I understand God, nothing outside of God can do anything “on its own”.

I just realized that maybe this is panentheism. Is panentheism a heresy?

 

[JDaniel]

I took a few chemistry classes in university as part of the engineering program. I’m not sure what you mean about weakening a position with proper scientific terminology…

I understand physics and chemistry. I’m not denying any of the findings of those sciences. I accept that the laws of physics are valid and useful. I’m questioning them at a deeper level, looking at their transcendent causes and significance, not questioning whether the science is valid.

Yes, they are formulas or mathematical models. Both of those are just ideas, not real things. The ideas are correct - what I don’t get is that you seem to think of them as a “thing” that is “created”, like a physical object. If by “creating the law” you just mean that God “commanded that this law be followed” that would clear up the misunderstanding. But it sounds like you’re saying the law is some entity of its own that goes around making sure material things do what they’re supposed to - which is a new idea to me that I don’t accept.

People create things that don’t need maintenance because we are limited - we want to spend our time on other things, and we’re lazy, we don’t want to work. Those aren’t concerns for God.

Also, I think its part of Catholic theology. God “holds creation in existence”. You seem to be saying that this just means that God created the universe once, and then passively wills that it keep going. But there is more to the theology than that - a simple metaphor is the picture of God holding the world in his hands… if God stops holding it, it falls and will disappear. A more advanced explanation is that God’s love sustains creation in existence, each particle is at each moment held in existence by God’s love.

Yes, I’m saying that a passive will is a weakness. It’s what happens when a lesser being has a will but can’t think of too many things at once, and can’t do everything at once. Since God is all-powerful, his will is perfect, therefore always active, not passive.

There are things that God can’t do - God can’t be stupid, God can’t be evil, God can’t get confused, etc. I think having a passive will falls into this category.

That’s true. But the other point still stands - the man isn’t capable of actually moving the ball perfectly according to some formula, at least not while doing other things. FOr example, he couldn’t do that with two balls at the same time.

But how can I not put God into the analogy? The analogy contains the subject in question - how material things work. You’re doing the same thing by not putting God into the analogy - you’re presuming your conclusion (that objects move without God’s direct involvement). We’re both making the same mistake, and its unavoidable. I’m starting to think this problem just isn’t solvable by the human mind.

I think I see where you’re going: God creates the situation whereby He holds everything in place, moves things, supports things, etc., every moment of every day, in human terms. The laws are either derivative from His effort or they were created in order so that God would not have to work too hard, so to speak.

I believe that they are derivative from His continuous effort. God has always revealed himself in various ways to us. But, here we have a real conundrum. God has revealed himself to us in His laws (of nature) but (some) men have decided, upon discovering His mechanisms for keeping everything in existence, that they are smarter than God and that God doesn’t need to exist. The laws of nature are all that is needed.

That thinking does tend to give those “laws” ontological existence as beings in themselves. Even if called a “mechanism”, we are drawn to regard it as having the quality of being. But, the mechanism does not have its own beingness. It exists only in matter (and energy) and thus is presupposed by matter (and energy), or what Aquinas and Aristotle might have called material being or, more precisely, mobile being. The mechanisms or, laws, are dependent upon material being. However, material being is dependent upon those laws, too. The difference is, that material or, mobile, being is more certain to us than are the quantum mechanisms that underly it.

jd

 

[Drawmack]

I took a few chemistry classes in university as part of the engineering program. I’m not sure what you mean about weakening a position with proper scientific terminology…

I knew there was something I liked about you – I’m a computer scientist so we’ve closely related educational backgrounds. How about quantum physics?

I understand physics and chemistry. I’m not denying any of the findings of those sciences. I accept that the laws of physics are valid and useful. I’m questioning them at a deeper level, looking at their transcendent causes and significance, not questioning whether the science is valid.

Just double checking because your arguments are very close to what I run into when discussing with new earth creationists.

Yes, they are formulas or mathematical models. Both of those are just ideas, not real things. The ideas are correct - what I don’t get is that you seem to think of them as a “thing” that is “created”, like a physical object. If by “creating the law” you just mean that God “commanded that this law be followed” that would clear up the misunderstanding. But it sounds like you’re saying the law is some entity of its own that goes around making sure material things do what they’re supposed to - which is a new idea to me that I don’t accept.

Well, it is a thing created by God in that everything is created by God. This statement is not limited to the physical. God created the physical, he also created the ethereal. He created thought and love, neither of which are tangible items. So, when I say that he created the law, yes I mean that he commanded the law to exist. He commanded that matter would react to other matter in a specific way. He commanded that gravity exist, but he doesn’t grab (with his will) objects and hold them together be simply created gravity such that an item of lower mass is attracted to an item of higher mass.

People create things that don’t need maintenance because we are limited - we want to spend our time on other things, and we’re lazy, we don’t want to work. Those aren’t concerns for God.

I just don’t understand why God would want to do more than he has to?

Also, I think its part of Catholic theology. God “holds creation in existence”. You seem to be saying that this just means that God created the universe once, and then passively wills that it keep going. But there is more to the theology than that - a simple metaphor is the picture of God holding the world in his hands… if God stops holding it, it falls and will disappear. A more advanced explanation is that God’s love sustains creation in existence, each particle is at each moment held in existence by God’s love.

John Paul II and Pius XII did some excellent encyclicals on how science and theology are not at odds with one another and actually support one another. I would recommend you read those.

Yes, I’m saying that a passive will is a weakness. It’s what happens when a lesser being has a will but can’t think of too many things at once, and can’t do everything at once. Since God is all-powerful, his will is perfect, therefore always active, not passive.

I think this may be the disconnect in our discussion right here. I do not see passive will as a weakness but a strength. The passive will allows limited creatures, i.e. humans, to focus more completely on the problem at hand. Granted, God does not have this limitation. However, the passive will allows him to not worry about certain things for a time. If you look in the story of the flood you’ll see the wording, “God remembered Noah…” This, to me, implies that God does not actively hold everything in his “mind” (lack of a better word) at once. But rather that he just allows most things to happen once he sets a process in motion. Does that make sense?

There are things that God can’t do - God can’t be stupid, God can’t be evil, God can’t get confused, etc. I think having a passive will falls into this category.

I don’t; I think that he is capable of creating something and then just letting it function on it’s own according to the law (or whatever) that he created. Think about it, if God is incapable of just letting things function on their own then this would include free will. I know before that you said to keep free will out of this, but I cannot anymore than you can keep God out of my analogy. Your reasoning alleviates free will. If God is incapable of passively letting his creation exist, then God is incapable of letting us passively exist, thus we have no free will we have only God’s will.

If man has free will then God must, by definition, possess a passive will and an active will.

 

[Drawmack]

I think I see where you’re going: God creates the situation whereby He holds everything in place, moves things, supports things, etc., every moment of every day, in human terms. The laws are either derivative from His effort or they were created in order so that God would not have to work too hard, so to speak.

I believe that they are derivative from His continuous effort. God has always revealed himself in various ways to us. But, here we have a real conundrum. God has revealed himself to us in His laws (of nature) but (some) men have decided, upon discovering His mechanisms for keeping everything in existence, that they are smarter than God and that God doesn’t need to exist. The laws of nature are all that is needed.

That thinking does tend to give those “laws” ontological existence as beings in themselves. Even if called a “mechanism”, we are drawn to regard it as having the quality of being. But, the mechanism does not have its own beingness. It exists only in matter (and energy) and thus is presupposed by matter (and energy), or what Aquinas and Aristotle might have called material being or, more precisely, mobile being. The mechanisms or, laws, are dependent upon material being. However, material being is dependent upon those laws, too. The difference is, that material or, mobile, being is more certain to us than are the quantum mechanisms that underly it.

jd

Just to clarify something I already addressed early on in this thread. Matter is energy. They are one and the same. There is no difference. Matter is simply a form of potential energy. However, if you study how atoms work the substantive properties come from the bonds within the atom which are nothing but energy. Thus the statement matter and energy is repetitive.

 

[JDaniel]

Well… my next question would be, how does that work, how can God give an electron and a proton the ability to move towards each other “on their own”? How do they propel themselves? How do they know where the other particle is?

This is not really that hard to envision. Picture, shortly after the Big Bang, that all that existed in space was a mist (or, soup) of charged particles. As the primordial universe expanded (due to the explosion), charged particles caused attraction and some protons and neutrons (and electrons) “clumped” together to form primordial elements - e.g., the smaller elements, such as hydrogen and helium. As time went on, areas of greater concentration caused greater and greater attraction (or repulsion) and ever heavier elements were clumped together into much heavier matter, such as iron.

The particles or, elements, did not move themselves as we know that matter cannot move itself. But, being repelled or, attracted by the nearby electromagnetic properties of matter is a force that is capable of causing matter to move. Protons and neutrons were brought together by a clumping mechanism. Protons, neutrons and electrons were too. Molecules are clumpings of atoms that are brought together by these same electromagnetic forces. So, the inability of matter to self-move is compensated for, by God, by charging the particles.

If we place iron filings on a tabletop and bring a magnet close to the filings, we will see the filings jump to the magnet. If we have two magnets and place the like-charged ends close to each other, we see (and feel) the two items repel each other.

But, I realize that question is unanswerable, and so isn’t fair. I guess its just a mystery?

In what way is the question “unanswerable”?

I can’t reconcile the idea of a particle moving “on its own” with an omnipotent God. The way I understand God, nothing outside of God can do anything “on its own”.

It doesn’t, really. The charges on each particle are strong enough to cause the movement of another particle that is nearby. That’s all.

I just realized that maybe this is pantheism. Is pantheism a heresy?

So far, it’s not pantheism. I do think Pantheism is heretical, but not necessarily “heresy”.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Just to clarify something I already addressed early on in this thread. Matter is energy. They are one and the same. There is no difference. Matter is simply a form of potential energy. However, if you study how atoms work the substantive properties come from the bonds within the atom which are nothing but energy. Thus the statement matter and energy is repetitive.

Thanks, Drawmack. You are quite correct. I understand this, but, wanted to be very specific by not excluding energy in some unforeseen manner - not knowing what Neil knows.

jd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I knew there was something I liked about you – I’m a computer scientist so we’ve closely related educational backgrounds. How about quantum physics?

I work in software too - i do embedded software design.

I’ve read about quantum physics on my own. I like the theory that quantum uncertainty is the “loophole” in the laws of physics that the soul can work through to change the outcome of events. Or God can work through to create miracles.

Just double checking because your arguments are very close to what I run into when discussing with new earth creationists.

Actually I got to thinking about these things because I wanted to show young earth creationists that the science vs. religion conflict isn’t really a conflict at all. But it doesn’t seem to be helping

Well, it is a thing created by God in that everything is created by God. This statement is not limited to the physical. God created the physical, he also created the ethereal. He created thought and love, neither of which are tangible items. So, when I say that he created the law, yes I mean that he commanded the law to exist. He commanded that matter would react to other matter in a specific way. He commanded that gravity exist, but he doesn’t grab (with his will) objects and hold them together be simply created gravity such that an item of lower mass is attracted to an item of higher mass.

I just don’t understand why God would want to do more than he has to?

Well, I don’t understand how anything happens unless God does it

I think this may be the disconnect in our discussion right here. I do not see passive will as a weakness but a strength. The passive will allows limited creatures, i.e. humans, to focus more completely on the problem at hand. Granted, God does not have this limitation. However, the passive will allows him to not worry about certain things for a time. If you look in the story of the flood you’ll see the wording, “God remembered Noah…” This, to me, implies that God does not actively hold everything in his “mind” (lack of a better word) at once. But rather that he just allows most things to happen once he sets a process in motion. Does that make sense?

Not to worry about certain things? God doesn’t worry! You should spend some time imagining being omniscient and omnipotent… there is no worrying about things, no “taking a break”, no need to delegate tasks involved there

I don’t; I think that he is capable of creating something and then just letting it function on it’s own according to the law (or whatever) that he created. Think about it, if God is incapable of just letting things function on their own then this would include free will. I know before that you said to keep free will out of this, but I cannot anymore than you can keep God out of my analogy. Your reasoning alleviates free will. If God is incapable of passively letting his creation exist, then God is incapable of letting us passively exist, thus we have no free will we have only God’s will.

If man has free will then God must, by definition, possess a passive will and an active will.

Well, here’s how I see it. We can make choices on our own. We have a will that is independant from God. But once I make the choice, nothing happens as a result of that choice without God’s intervention. When I decide to open my eyes, God sees my decision, and affects the quantum events in my brain to cause brain activity and signals in the nerves that, according to the “laws of physics” that God follows all the time, will cause my eyelids to open. Then God actually moves each particle in my eyelids until my eyes are open.

 

[Drawmack]

Thanks, Drawmack. You are quite correct. I understand this, but, wanted to be very specific by not excluding energy in some unforeseen manner - not knowing what Neil knows.

jd

I understand, I just didn’t want to rehash something we’ve already gone around about in this thread and arrived at an agreement on.

 

[Drawmack]

I work in software too - i do embedded software design.

I specialize in database applications, all sorts. n-tier, desktop, web based, etc. I love databases and the way the model information. I find it very analogous to the way I organize my mind.

I’ve read about quantum physics on my own. I like the theory that quantum uncertainty is the “loophole” in the laws of physics that the soul can work through to change the outcome of events. Or God can work through to create miracles.

But quantum physics isn’t really a loophole. Matter is simply governed by different rules when we arrive at the quantum level. In the quantum a particle can be in more than one place at once. Thus nothing is ever anywhere, it is simply more likely to be at a given place then at any other place. What I find really interesting about quantum physics is that simply observing the particles changes the way they behave.

Actually I got to thinking about these things because I wanted to show young earth creationists that the science vs. religion conflict isn’t really a conflict at all. But it doesn’t seem to be helping

That is because young earth creationists deny science and believe it or not you are doing the same thing.

Well, I don’t understand how anything happens unless God does it

If God were to say. “Hey you, Mr. Particle, rotate via an electromagnetic force and exercise X gravity for the next 10,000 years.” Would he then have to actually touch this particle with his will every second for the next 10,000 years or is this one statement of his will be enough?

Well, here’s how I see it. We can make choices on our own. We have a will that is independant from God. But once I make the choice, nothing happens as a result of that choice without God’s intervention. When I decide to open my eyes, God sees my decision, and affects the quantum events in my brain to cause brain activity and signals in the nerves that, according to the “laws of physics” that God follows all the time, will cause my eyelids to open. Then God actually moves each particle in my eyelids until my eyes are open.

Okay, let’s examine your logic a little bit. If I make the decision to sin I am incapable of sinning unless God directly interacts to create the sinful action my body is taking. Matter of fact, by what you’re saying, I can’t even make the decision to sin unless God forces the synapses to fire in my brain in such a way as to create the thought of sin. Thus, you are postulating that God actually takes man down the path of sin. This would go right back to original sin. Satan can not tempt Eve unless God forces (not allows but actually forces) his material form to do so. Eve cannot understand that temptation unless God forces her brain to recognize the temptation. Eve cannot eat the apple unless God forces her brain to make her muscles move in such a way as to eat the apple. etc. Now do you see why I have a problem with God needing to directly create everything instead of simply stating laws and allowing matter to act according to those laws?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But quantum physics isn’t really a loophole. Matter is simply governed by different rules when we arrive at the quantum level. In the quantum a particle can be in more than one place at once. Thus nothing is ever anywhere, it is simply more likely to be at a given place then at any other place. What I find really interesting about quantum physics is that simply observing the particles changes the way they behave.

I find that interesting too. The “loophole” I was referring to is that events at the quantum level are random to some extent. There is no single predetermined outcome, which leaves room for free will and for God to control what happens without violating the laws of nature, by manipulating the random events. Kenneth Miller talks about this in his book Finding Darwin’s God.

That is because young earth creationists deny science and believe it or not you are doing the same thing.

Well… I disagree with you that I deny science. The laws of science are useful for predicting the behaviour of physical things.

If God were to say. “Hey you, Mr. Particle, rotate via an electromagnetic force and exercise X gravity for the next 10,000 years.” Would he then have to actually touch this particle with his will every second for the next 10,000 years or is this one statement of his will be enough?

Well, if God said that to me, I wouldn’t be able to do it. The question is, could the particle do it? Does the particle have that ability? If it does, please answer my question, where I asked you how the particle knows where the eletromagnetic force is and how it propels itself to move in accordance with the electromagnetic force.

Okay, let’s examine your logic a little bit. If I make the decision to sin I am incapable of sinning unless God directly interacts to create the sinful action my body is taking. Matter of fact, by what you’re saying, I can’t even make the decision to sin unless God forces the synapses to fire in my brain in such a way as to create the thought of sin. Thus, you are postulating that God actually takes man down the path of sin. This would go right back to original sin. Satan can not tempt Eve unless God forces (not allows but actually forces) his material form to do so. Eve cannot understand that temptation unless God forces her brain to recognize the temptation. Eve cannot eat the apple unless God forces her brain to make her muscles move in such a way as to eat the apple. etc. Now do you see why I have a problem with God needing to directly create everything instead of simply stating laws and allowing matter to act according to those laws?

The decision is made in the soul, not in the brain. You can make the decision to sin on your own, which God will translate into synapses firing in your brain.

So, yes, God participates in the sin. This is called God’s “permissive will” - he allows us to make decisions and see the consequences of them.

 

[Drawmack]

I find that interesting too. The “loophole” I was referring to is that events at the quantum level are random to some extent. There is no single predetermined outcome, which leaves room for free will and for God to control what happens without violating the laws of nature, by manipulating the random events. Kenneth Miller talks about this in his book Finding Darwin’s God.

This statement, right here, contradicts everything you have been saying. If the particle has free will then certainly God isn’t moving it around at his whim.

Well… I disagree with you that I deny science. The laws of science are useful for predicting the behaviour of physical things.

No their not, not according to you. According to you the only thing useful is determining God’s will. After all there are no laws of science according to you.

Well, if God said that to me, I wouldn’t be able to do it. The question is, could the particle do it? Does the particle have that ability? If it does, please answer my question, where I asked you how the particle knows where the eletromagnetic force is and how it propels itself to move in accordance with the electromagnetic force.

It is beyond God’s ability to keep you alive and breathing for 10,000 years?

The decision is made in the soul, not in the brain. You can make the decision to sin on your own, which God will translate into synapses firing in your brain.

So, yes, God participates in the sin. This is called God’s “permissive will” - he allows us to make decisions and see the consequences of them.

So, God is sinning. You said God couldn’t sin. If God participates in the sin then he is sinning.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This is not really that hard to envision. Picture, shortly after the Big Bang, that all that existed in space was a mist (or, soup) of charged particles. As the primordial universe expanded (due to the explosion), charged particles caused attraction and some protons and neutrons (and electrons) “clumped” together to form primordial elements - e.g., the smaller elements, such as hydrogen and helium. As time went on, areas of greater concentration caused greater and greater attraction (or repulsion) and ever heavier elements were clumped together into much heavier matter, such as iron.

The particles or, elements, did not move themselves as we know that matter cannot move itself. But, being repelled or, attracted by the nearby electromagnetic properties of matter is a force that is capable of causing matter to move. Protons and neutrons were brought together by a clumping mechanism. Protons, neutrons and electrons were too. Molecules are clumpings of atoms that are brought together by these same electromagnetic forces. So, the inability of matter to self-move is compensated for, by God, by charging the particles.

So the particles can’t move themselves… they are moved by a force? How does the force move the particle? How does it know the particle is there, and how does it pull it?

This is what I meant by unanswerable…

If we place iron filings on a tabletop and bring a magnet close to the filings, we will see the filings jump to the magnet. If we have two magnets and place the like-charged ends close to each other, we see (and feel) the two items repel each other.

In what way is the question “unanswerable”?

See above

So far, it’s not pantheism. I do think Pantheism is heretical, but not necessarily “heresy”.

jd

That actually wasn’t a typo… panENtheism is different from pantheism. WIth panentheism, the universe is in God, but there is more to God than the universe.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think I see what you’re saying now. If something outside of God (the soul) can have knowledge of its situation, and can make a decision “on its own”, then by some similar mechanism, which we don’t understand, a particle like an electron could also sense a force (a primitive type of knowledge) and do something “on its own” - although an electron can only make one decision - to obey the rules that God established for electrons. The question still stands, does God move the electron after it senses the field it is in and decides that it has to move, or does the electron move “on its own”…

 

[JDaniel]

So the particles can’t move themselves… they are moved by a force? How does the force move the particle? How does it know the particle is there, and how does it pull it?

This is what I meant by unanswerable.

As I said, whenever particles, by hook or crook, get close to one another, since they have charges, positive or negative, they are pulled together or repelled apart. One particle doesn’t “know” the other particle is nearby. The particles are simply in proximity to each other. The force is magnetism; no different than the magnet and the iron filings I mentioned in an above post. God, via the BB put matter in motion allow them to get close to one another. The charge-forces of particles are able to cause the motion of nearby particles. And, since there is nothing between them that would impede such movement, they each move towards the other.

It is the chance of things in scattered motion that brings particles into proximity or, it is God. Why would God do this with matter? As I cannot but assume, where He is concerned, I must assume that He knew it would work well that way or, He intended it to work that way - or, both.

That actually wasn’t a typo… panENtheism is different from pantheism. With panentheism, the universe is in God, but there is more to God than the universe.

I wondered about that and made a choice. I figured you’d correct me if I went the wrong way. Anyway, my concept of an infinite God is that He occupies all there is of space. Now, does He carve out a place for the universe? Or, does He allow the universe to exist within Him, so to speak? The Church says that He permeates all things. But, not by some sort of ethereal substance, but, rather as that which is metaphysical would pass through and enter that which is physical, as though the physical substance was not there. But this is neither pantheism nor panentheism. It is more like a complete mixture of two liquids, not a suspension and not a separation, but, a mixture that permits each substance to maintain its own separate nature even while mixed.

So, in a way, God stays “in contact”, but, not so much so that He directs us entirely. Whether or not He directs our inner mechanisms, such as the matter we consist of, I don’t know. He certainly could. And this would bring us back to your initial questions. “Does He hold us in existence, or, do the Laws of matter and heat hold us in existence?” According to St. Thomas, the Third Way would appear to indicate that He has to hold us in existence otherwise, we would be necessary being(s) and would hold ourselves in existence. Any cursory view of the way things are proves that it is not true that we hold ourselves in existence.

Further, ALL physical beings are contingent beings. ALL beings come to be, remain in being, and pass away ALL as the effects of a first efficient cause or, prime mover. The chain for each effect-being extends to that which is the first efficient cause or, mover. But, I could be wrong.

jd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As I said, whenever particles, by hook or crook, get close to one another, since they have charges, positive or negative, they are pulled together or repelled apart. One particle doesn’t “know” the other particle is nearby. The particles are simply in proximity to each other. The force is magnetism; no different than the magnet and the iron filings I mentioned in an above post. God, via the BB put matter in motion allow them to get close to one another. The charge-forces of particles are able to cause the motion of nearby particles. And, since there is nothing between them that would impede such movement, they each move towards the other.

It is the chance of things in scattered motion that brings particles into proximity or, it is God. Why would God do this with matter? As I cannot but assume, where He is concerned, I must assume that He knew it would work well that way or, He intended it to work that way - or, both.

Well, instead of accusing you of just rephrasing the original statement and asking you “but how” again, I’ll dig a bit more deeply by looking up exact terms in the dictionary

You said “The charge-forces of particles are able to cause the motion of nearby particles” and I’m thinking “how do they cause that?”

Force: Physics. a. an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.

So basically you’re saying that the charge of the particle influences nearby particles to produce a change in their movement. This is basic elementary school physics. But I’m asking “how does it influence it”? If you regress down another level to quantum physics, I’ll ask again, “why does that work, and how?” I’ll keep asking it for each regressive layer of physics until you have to say “that’s just how God made it”. Then I’ll say “So it’s God who does it.” And you’ll say “No, God made it to do that on its own” and I’ll say “How does it do it on its own?”



Thats what I meant by unanswerable!

I wondered about that and made a choice. I figured you’d correct me if I went the wrong way. Anyway, my concept of an infinite God is that He occupies all there is of space. Now, does He carve out a place for the universe? Or, does He allow the universe to exist within Him, so to speak? The Church says that He permeates all things. But, not by some sort of ethereal substance, but, rather as that which is metaphysical would pass through and enter that which is physical, as though the physical substance was not there. But this is neither pantheism nor panentheism. It is more like a complete mixture of two liquids, not a suspension and not a separation, but, a mixture that permits each substance to maintain its own separate nature even while mixed.

So, in a way, God stays “in contact”, but, not so much so that He directs us entirely. Whether or not He directs our inner mechanisms, such as the matter we consist of, I don’t know. He certainly could. And this would bring us back to your initial questions. “Does He hold us in existence, or, do the Laws of matter and heat hold us in existence?” According to St. Thomas, the Third Way would appear to indicate that He has to hold us in existence otherwise, we would be necessary being(s) and would hold ourselves in existence. Any cursory view of the way things are proves that it is not true that we hold ourselves in existence.

Further, ALL physical beings are contingent beings. ALL beings come to be, remain in being, and pass away ALL as the effects of a first efficient cause or, prime mover. The chain for each effect-being extends to that which is the first efficient cause or, mover. But, I could be wrong.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, instead of accusing you of just rephrasing the original statement and asking you “but how” again, I’ll dig a bit more deeply by looking up exact terms in the dictionary

You said “The charge-forces of particles are able to cause the motion of nearby particles” and I’m thinking “how do they cause that?”

Force: Physics. a. an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.

So basically you’re saying that the charge of the particle influences nearby particles to produce a change in their movement. This is basic elementary school physics. But I’m asking “how does it influence it”? If you regress down another level to quantum physics, I’ll ask again, “why does that work, and how?” I’ll keep asking it for each regressive layer of physics until you have to say “that’s just how God made it”. Then I’ll say “So it’s God who does it.” And you’ll say “No, God made it to do that on its own” and I’ll say “How does it do it on its own?”



Thats what I meant by unanswerable!

Well, I think it is answerable and has been answered. However, you won’t accept the answer. This is like the child that asks, over and over and over, “Why, mommy?” just to say the words and get mommy to react.

Now, two can play the same game: So, you’ll ask, “So it’s God who does it.” And I’ll say “No, God made it to do that on its own” and you’ll say “How does it do it on its own?” and I’ll say because God made it do it on its own." And you’ll ask, “How does it do it on its own?” And I’ll answer, “Because God made it do it on its own.” And, after a few weeks, someone will Section 8 us and we’ll be mumbling to ourselves, in straight jackets somewhere.

You must be trying to make a point. What is it?

jd