Could the Church accept that the world was made by man?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OxfordComma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OxfordComma

Guest
As a science person I am attracted by the idea that the world was made by man, as suggested by certain theories of modern science

The Church does not currently go along with that idea, but my question is whether it might in the future
 
The world was made by man? Do you think that mountains, oceans, trees, and animals were made by man?
 
I think if you can prove that the world was made by man, the church would have to go along with this proof. Come back when you have this proof, I will be fascinated at the scientific method behind it. You are not that specific as to the proponents of these theories. Could you, for greater, clarity, cite the journal abstracts? Thanks in anticipation.
 
OxfordComma said:
As a science person I am attracted by the idea that the world was made by man, as suggested by certain theories of modern science

The Church does not currently go along with that idea, but my question is whether it might in the future
Click to expand...
One day, the devil said to GOD, I can make anything you can. So God said, Let’s see you make a man. So the devil leaned over and picked up a handful of dirt and God said, No,No, Get your own dirt. God Bless, Memaw
 
SecretCatholic said:
Please enlighten us on these theories.
Click to expand...
The subjective Bayesian interpretation of quantum theory ('QBism, Chris A Fuchs) implies man’s creative role, when the theory is taken to a conclusion. I will look up a reference.

Of course, there is evidence that some of the world was made by man (eg, cars, computers) . So if we don’t want to make the Creator a “God of the gaps”, we should consider that all of the world was made (or is made) by man.

I forgot to say that I am only suggesting that the world *after the Fall *could be man’s work. God made the world that existed before the Fall, and he also made man.

(my original question stands: could the Church ever come round to accepting this view?)
 
OxfordComma said:
The subjective Bayesian interpretation of quantum theory ('QBism, Chris A Fuchs) implies man’s creative role, when the theory is taken to a conclusion. I will look up a reference.

Of course, there is evidence that some of the world was made by man (eg, cars, computers) . So if we don’t want to make the Creator a “God of the gaps”, we should consider that all of the world was made (or is made) by man.

I forgot to say that I am only suggesting that the world *after the Fall *could be man’s work. God made the world that existed before the Fall, and he also made man.

(my original question stands: could the Church ever come round to accepting this view?)
Click to expand...
“Cars, computers” etc. aren’t “the world” – they’re stuff, they’re things. Big difference between making an iPad and Mount Everest.
 
OxfordComma said:
The subjective Bayesian interpretation of quantum theory ('QBism, Chris A Fuchs) implies man’s creative role, when the theory is taken to a conclusion. I will look up a reference.

Of course, there is evidence that some of the world was made by man (eg, cars, computers) . So if we don’t want to make the Creator a “God of the gaps”, we should consider that all of the world was made (or is made) by man.

I forgot to say that I am only suggesting that the world *after the Fall *could be man’s work. God made the world that existed before the Fall, and he also made man.

(my original question stands: could the Church ever come round to accepting this view?)
Click to expand...
Any Bayesian application to Quantum Physics would only be a subjective interpretation of probability statistics. As Karl Popper would explain science only moves the probability of the correctness of any scientific hypothesis further down the scale towards being probably true, right up until the first test of the theory proves it is false.
Thus science can only prove conclusively that a hypothesis is false, adding only to the probability of truth with every successful experiment that applies the hypothesis without failure.
Thus Newtonian Physics work only when you deal within certain paradigms of velocity, but move towards the speed of light and they fail.
Your application of the Bayesian theorem to quantum physics would only go towards probability analysis, not a “proof” that would sit well with absolute truths that the Church looks for, often outside the limitations of the scientific method.
However I await your citations with growing expectation.
 
No. God made the world and man. Man has used his gifts (which come from God) to create many things, but he did not create the world and the Church will never agree to that.
 
OxfordComma said:
As a science person I am attracted by the idea that the world was made by man, as suggested by certain theories of modern science

The Church does not currently go along with that idea, but my question is whether it might in the future
Click to expand...
No. It is De Fide teaching that God made the world, in time, out of nothing. It is also Divine Revelation. Since God has Revealed this truth the Church will never change the teaching.

Furthermore, how could man have made the world he is part of??? That makes no kind of sense!!!

Linus2nd
 
OxfordComma said:
Of course, there is evidence that some of the world was made by man (eg, cars, computers) . So if we don’t want to make the Creator a “God of the gaps”, we should consider that all of the world was made (or is made) by man.
Click to expand...
  1. Who made the materials out of which man constructed ‘tools’? There is a difference between creation and invention.
  2. Who made man?
 
We are said to be co-creators with God, and we do have domain of this world. But that’s not the same thing as saying that man created the world, which doesn’t make sense to me either, unless you could prove a weird time travel paradox.
 
This sounds no less preposterous than what an icon of science recently proposed in his latest book. 😉
 
SecretCatholic said:
We are said to be co-creators with God, and we do have domain of this world. But that’s not the same thing as saying that man created the world, which doesn’t make sense to me either, unless you could prove a weird time travel paradox.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If man is not immortal, how did man create something (out of nothing) billions of years before man existed? Therefore, it has to be something immortal. So maybe it isn’t a human being, maybe it is some other immortal person, who then created humans in His own likeness?
 
Aloysium said:
This sounds no less preposterous than what an icon of science recently proposed in his latest book. 😉
Click to expand...
Indeed 🙂

I agree with PaulfromIowa that it seems preposterous for trees, mountains etc to be due to us. But our science shouldn’t be based on what seems credible. (Unless “credibility” is made part of science). I don’t see the idea as any more preposterous than miracles

Thank you to Linus2nd and Cricket2 for clear statements. I expected that response, albeit reluctantly.

I say reluctantly because religion would benefit greatly if man made the world ie, if man were the author of his misfortune rather than God.

Petaro - there can be no proof. If man is the author of reality, it would be illogical to look to reality for a proof. Instead of proof, we might look for plausibility. The idea could be very plausible

I will look for scientific references later today (it’s a chilly winter daybreak here in New Zealand). Here is a religious account of the world from a scientific perspective:

eigenket.com/ReligiousAccount140522.html
 
OK, here are some references to the quantum theory:

arxiv.org/pdf/1003.5209v1
QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism; Christopher A. Fuchs; 2010

and

arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0104088v1
Unknown Quantum States: The Quantum de Finetti Representation
Caves, Fuchs, Shack; 2001

(Posting these significantly-mathematical references is a bit like giving Euler’s proof of God 😉 It depends on forum members’ scientific knowledge.)

The papers imply that the traditional approach to quantum theory should be replaced by an approach based on what people believe. This idea is not yet scientific mainstream (in spite of significant results) mainly because of the reference to human consciousness, which is poorly treated by Fuchs et al.

The idea that man might have made the world (or makes the world) comes from marrying Fuchs’ ideas with the Religious Account of the World, which I provided a link to. The Religious Account tidies up the reference to consciousness, by replacing it with belief.
 
OxfordComma said:
Indeed 🙂

I agree with PaulfromIowa that it seems preposterous for trees, mountains etc to be due to us. But our science shouldn’t be based on what seems credible. (Unless “credibility” is made part of science). I don’t see the idea as any more preposterous than miracles

Thank you to Linus2nd and Cricket2 for clear statements. I expected that response, albeit reluctantly.

I say reluctantly because religion would benefit greatly if man made the world ie, if man were the author of his misfortune rather than God.

Petaro - there can be no proof. If man is the author of reality, it would be illogical to look to reality for a proof. Instead of proof, we might look for plausibility. The idea could be very plausible

I will look for scientific references later today (it’s a chilly winter daybreak here in New Zealand). Here is a religious account of the world from a scientific perspective:

eigenket.com/ReligiousAccount140522.html
Click to expand...
I have read your citation with interest and as I suspected it is indeed the attempted application of probability theory into constructs of quantum theory that identifies the inter-relationship of the observer into the possible creative frameworks.
I question your wisdom at choosing this forum in attempting to draw discussion on such an esoteric level of what can only be described as the philosophy of science, rather than science itself.
I cannot tie the conclusions, or lack of conclusions, within the article with your positing the creation of the post fall world by man. Why only the post fall world ?
Until I can tell a turnip what to do I will limit man’s role to his present position as created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top