Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Linusthe2nd]

Not many women were allowed into that almost exclusively male club, which may in part have something to do with Thomas saying things like “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power” (ST I, 92, 1)

Probably best not to go down that inconvenient avenue.

The misbegotten notion of “natures” is what led to statements like “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten”.

Never heard that before . I see your team is digging deep. I’ll have to send that to my Sister, it should get a rise out of her . On second thought, I should send it to her husband and he can hit her over the head with it .

There is a ray of light in part of Thomas’ answer to Obj 1 where he says,

" …On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female. "

You did know that St. Teresa is a Doctor of the Church, right?

Certainly Thomas’ reflections here are reflective of the attitudes of a period of time. It is not an argument against the notion that all substances regarded as an existing unit, possess a nature or form from which all their observed powers and activities flow. From these typical powers and activities we identify them as a substance or being of a certain type.

The notion of natures is not misbegotten, science depends on the fact.

I don’t remember having respoded, but if you say so. Change (moving) is fundamental, lack of motion is only temporary, all things must pass…

Linus2nd

 

[KingCoil]

I have read up to post #3 of this thread.

Sep 11, '13, 5:46 pm Jozefo
New Member Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: In a bag of bones and skin
Posts: 738
Religion: No Label Believer

Re: Could the Universe have Created Itself? #3

No.

You say:

“NOTICE – All of my postings reflect only my opinions and suppositions. Strong caution is urged when reading my work product, and no warranty as to its accuracy or veracity is expressed or implied. Read at your own risk.”

I propose that you also develop the habit of thinking why you present your opinions or suppositions in public in a forum, namely, because you have reasons for adopting them; otherwise, forgive me, you are engaged in what I call categorical declaratory utterances without any supporting reasoning.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Well, I have read the whole page 1 of this thread.

Have you anyone here noticed this post, it is self-contradictory, see the clauses put in bold by yours truly,

A third possibility is that the universe was not created at all by itself or by G-d. It just always existed and changed from one form to another throughout eternity. I’ll remain with G-d, however, as the Creator.

I guess it must have been a case of the poster not reading again what he had written, to check whether he was consistent and coherent in his thinking and writing.

KingCoil

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, I have read the whole page 1 of this thread.

Have you anyone here noticed this post, it is self-contradictory, see the clauses put in bold by yours truly,

I guess it must have been a case of the poster not reading again what he had written, to check whether he was consistent and coherent in his thinking and writing.

KingCoil

Why is it contradictory? He indicates that the arguments for the existence of God are more convincing, but that the statement that the universe always existed is a possibility in his opinion.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Some physicists today are supporting the idea of a multiverse, where you have an infinite number of parallel universes. If such were the case, even though each universe could be bounded and finite, when taken as a whole, the multiverse could be infinite and unbounded. It is speculation of a sort, but it is not been disproven.

If there are an infinite number of universes, then, keeping God in the equation, we have God creating these infinite universes, and therefore, while the number of universes may be infinite, no single universe is infinite, since each had its beginning in time. But then, is it possible for God to create an infinity of universes, that is, can an infinity beget an infinity? I suppose one could say that God has been creating universes for all infinity, but then, that supposes that there was no time, so to speak, when God was not creating universes, and that would seem to say that a necessary attribute of God is creating universes, since He has always been doing so, and it would also suggest that He must always continue doing so for all infinity, neither proposition seeming logical, to me at least. I conclude that God can no more create an infinity than He can create another God equal to Himself. What do you think?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Father Spitzer’s book and research is interesting and he discusses the question of the multiverse. If you have no answer to the question of the multiverse, then some might see your argument of finitude of the universe as lacking in credibility.

If we say that there are an infinite number of universes, then aren’t we saying that God must have been creating universes for all infinity, and that would make universe creation a necessary attribute of God, which seems to me to be contradictory? Therefore, I see the existence of God and the existence of an infinite number of universes as mutually exclusive. As I see it, only one or the other can exist, but not both.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Well, I have read the whole page 1 of this thread.

I guess it must have been a case of the poster not reading again what he had written, to check whether he was consistent and coherent in his thinking and writing.

Why is it contradictory? He indicates that the arguments for the existence of God are more convincing, but that the statement that the universe always existed is a possibility in his opinion.

Thanks for your notice.

Let us work out the exact thoughts of meltz: * enumeration by yours truly ]*

• A third possibility is that the universe was not created at all by itself or by G-d.
  [ii] It just always existed and changed from one form to another throughout eternity.
  [iii] I’ll remain with G-d, however, as the Creator.

In * meltz is stating two possibilities:

Possibility (a) that the universe was not created at all by itself or
Possibility (b) that the universe was created by G-d.
In [ii] meltz is elaborating on *(a).

In [iii] he is saying that his attachment is not to any possibility but to the truth and the fact that God exists in the actual objective reality of existence, and in relation to the existence of the universe, God is the creator of the universe.

So, I tend to see a contradiction in his exposition of what knows about the idea of an eternal universe or a universe created by God, namely:

As he already knows for certain that God exists and He is the creator of the universe, then he needs not bring in the possibilities of (a) and (b) for a starter; he should have begun right away with the declaration that for himself God exists and is the creator of the universe, and then continued saying all speculations of (a) and (b) as to possibility are all imaginations against the truth and the fact, and he will stand to prove that his attachment to God as creator of the universe is the truth and the fact, and to prove that there is no possibility whatsoever except on the basis of a pseudo possibility by imaginations against the truth and the fact that scil.,** God exists and He is the creator of the universe.

KingCoil*
[/QUOTE]

 

[JamesCaruso]

These are interesting presentations of Fr. Spitzer. They are quite enjoyable to watch and his book is interesting to read. Let us assume that Father Spitzer is correct and that God did create the universe and work from there. This presents us with a problem as we know that God is all good and all powerful. Why then does He allow a small helpless baby to be born with horrible and painful defects. The child did nothing wrong; why is it right for such an unfortunate child to have to live such a miserable life of suffering in disease and unending pain? Since God is all good and all powerful why does He not intervene in such a case and allow the helpless child to lead a joyful life instead of a short and painful life of horrible suffering and disease?

That calls forth a host of questions about the nature o joy and suffering. Was there suffering in the Garden of Eden? Could not Adam break a bone, cut his finger, or be bitten by a lion? If so, then joy and suffering are not mutually exclusive. If not, then the suffering of the helpless child in your paragraph above is a product of the fall of man, and God is not responsible for it at all. Even so, we learn in this fallen world that suffering and joy often go hand in hand, as in accepting and offering up a particular suffering for the salvation of souls. I often wonder how some theologians say that in heaven there is no suffering, but only eternal bliss. This concept certainly blows holes in my personal belief that Mary and the saints suffer great sadness at the plight of man and so they selflessly petition God for mercy on our behalf, unless of course, suffering and bliss can coexist. What I have learned over the years is that love always calls for greater suffering in terms of self denial, Is not love dynamic? So do we stop growing in love the minute we die, or do we continue to love more and more through all eternity. I am certainly in hope of the latter, but then, would that not entail suffering, such as the sadness the saints feel for the lost souls on earth? Does not even the petitioning of God, the intercession of the saints, describe a certain kind of suffering to make such noble efforts on our behalf? Is not the suffering of a mother for her wayward child analogous to the suffering of the saints for the suffering throngs of humanity? I may be all wet, but I hesitate to intellectualize away the suffering and sorrowful hearts of Jesus and Mary for their children here on earth. The Head of the Mystical Body of Christ is in heaven, but most of the parts of the body may be in Purgatory or on earth. It seems to me that if one part of the Body hurts, the whole Body hurts. Am I theologically off the charts?

 

[Tomdstone]

If there are an infinite number of universes, then, keeping God in the equation, we have God creating these infinite universes, and therefore, while the number of universes may be infinite, no single universe is infinite, since each had its beginning in time. But then, is it possible for God to create an infinity of universes, that is, can an infinity beget an infinity? I suppose one could say that God has been creating universes for all infinity, but then, that supposes that there was no time, so to speak, when God was not creating universes, and that would seem to say that a necessary attribute of God is creating universes, since He has always been doing so, and it would also suggest that He must always continue doing so for all infinity, neither proposition seeming logical, to me at least. I conclude that God can no more create an infinity than He can create another God equal to Himself. What do you think?

I disagree because there are different types of infinities. This was proven long ago by the mathematician Cantor. I don’t see any contradiction in asserting that God could create a countably infinite number of universes.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thanks for your notice.

Let us work out the exact thoughts of meltz: * enumeration by yours truly ]*

• A third possibility is that the universe was not created at all by itself or by G-d.
  [ii] It just always existed and changed from one form to another throughout eternity.
  [iii] I’ll remain with G-d, however, as the Creator.

In * meltz is stating two possibilities:

Possibility (a) that the universe was not created at all by itself or
Possibility (b) that the universe was created by G-d.
In [ii] meltz is elaborating on *(a).

In [iii] he is saying that his attachment is not to any possibility but to the truth and the fact that God exists in the actual objective reality of existence, and in relation to the existence of the universe, God is the creator of the universe.

So, I tend to see a contradiction in his exposition of what knows about the idea of an eternal universe or a universe created by God, namely:

As he already knows for certain that God exists and He is the creator of the universe, then he needs not bring in the possibilities of (a) and (b) for a starter; he should have begun right away with the declaration that for himself God exists and is the creator of the universe, and then continued saying all speculations of (a) and (b) as to possibility are all imaginations against the truth and the fact, and he will stand to prove that his attachment to God as creator of the universe is the truth and the fact, and to prove that there is no possibility whatsoever except on the basis of a pseudo possibility by imaginations against the truth and the fact that scil.,*** God exists and He is the creator of the universe.

KingCoilI didn’t know that he knew for certain that God exists.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Thanks for your notice.

Let us work out the exact thoughts of meltz: * enumeration by yours truly ]*

• A third possibility is that the universe was not created at all by itself or by G-d.
  [ii] It just always existed and changed from one form to another throughout eternity.
  [iii] I’ll remain with G-d, however, as the Creator.

In * meltz is stating two possibilities:

Possibility (a) that the universe was not created at all by itself or
Possibility (b) that the universe was created by G-d.
In [ii] meltz is elaborating on *(a).

In [iii] he is saying that his attachment is not to any possibility but to the truth and the fact that God exists in the actual objective reality of existence, and in relation to the existence of the universe, God is the creator of the universe.

So, I tend to see a contradiction in his exposition of what knows about the idea of an eternal universe or a universe created by God, namely:

As he already knows for certain that God exists and He is the creator of the universe, then he needs not bring in the possibilities of (a) and (b) for a starter; he should have begun right away with the declaration that for himself God exists and is the creator of the universe, and then continued saying all speculations of (a) and (b) as to possibility are all imaginations against the truth and the fact, and he will stand to prove that his attachment to God as creator of the universe is the truth and the fact, and to prove that there is no possibility whatsoever except on the basis of a pseudo possibility by imaginations against the truth and the fact that scil.,*** God exists and He is the creator of the universe.

KingCoil

My own Brother argues of the possibility that the universe just always existed. It is difficult to answer a person with this conviction. To me, the existence of God is self evident. To believe in a mulitiverse and that out of all the possible universes that have existed in an infinite line of universes, I just happen to find my self in one of them in which the human species has so evolved that I am a self aware being who can discuss this speculation as to my own origins, is to believe the highly implausible. Also, it is hard to swallow that I just happen to be in one of those infinite universes that is so wonderfully and intelligently made. If one accepts the existence of a multiverse, there must be an almost? infinite number of universes that did not turn out so well. It just blows my mind that anyone can believe that he is only a part of an endless stream of universes that have no meaning and which occasionally (in infinite terms) produces such a wonderfully complex and beautiful universe that you and I are witness to. Some may find the multiverse proposition compelling, but I can’t help but think that it more reflects the state of their souls than the evidence that abounds around them. I believe that prayer is more useful in dealing with persons of such beliefs than reason. In fact, I think with truths that are self evident, reason is helpless to convince those who are not disposed to receive it.

 

[Tomdstone]

I often wonder how some theologians say that in heaven there is no suffering, but only eternal bliss. This concept certainly blows holes in my personal belief that Mary and the saints suffer great sadness at the plight of man and so they selflessly petition God for mercy on our behalf, unless of course, suffering and bliss can coexist. … I may be all wet, but I hesitate to intellectualize away the suffering and sorrowful hearts of Jesus and Mary for their children here on earth.

Interesting ideas which bring to mind another question. God is all powerful, and Jesus is God, so why does He want to endure the suffering of a sorrowful heart in heaven?

 

[JamesCaruso]

I disagree because there are different types of infinities. This was proven long ago by the mathematician Cantor. I don’t see any contradiction in asserting that God could create a countably infinite number of universes.

Then we have a different definition of infinity when it comes to an infinite number of universes. If the infinite number of universes already exist, then it must be that creating universes is a necessary attribute of God in that He must have created them from all eternity. If OTOH God is still in the process of creating an infinite number of universes, then if He stops, the proposition proves untrue.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Interesting ideas which bring to mind another question. God is all powerful, and Jesus is God, so why does He want to endure the suffering of a sorrowful heart in heaven?

If we accept that God is love, then this passage from 1 Cor 13 may contain a clue:

4Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

And was there not an infinite perspective to His death on the Cross?

But beyond this, it’s a complete mystery to me.

 

[Tomdstone]

Then we have a different definition of infinity when it comes to an infinite number of universes. If the infinite number of universes already exist, then it must be that creating universes is a necessary attribute of God in that He must have created them from all eternity. If OTOH God is still in the process of creating an infinite number of universes, then if He stops, the proposition proves untrue.

The infinite number of universes could have been created simultaneously. For example, there is no contradiction in conceptualizing an infinite number of natural numbers: {1,2,3,4,…}

 

[KingCoil]

I still have not yet finished with page 1 of this thread.

Some modern physicists think the answer is yes. However there seems to be no evidence that this is so.For those who may be interested, there is no evidence for the assertion that there are experiments showing this universe creating something. This is pure hyperbolic speculation, it is not even known what ( if anything ) has been observed. If, indeed, some form of matter appeared where there had been none, it can only have come from some form of prior existing matter.

But besides this, is it possible that the universe could have created itself and that it sustains itself in existence?. There are lots of highly speculative theories to that effect Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith has some very interesting presentations about some of these theories. You can watch them here.
magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated philosophically that only God can cause anything to exist, only he can create anything and sustain it in existence. He discusses this in the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Qs 44-45, and 103-109. You can read it for yourself.

Linus2nd

The issue of this thread as formulated in the title is founded on what I call an invalid concept.

Here is the title: “Could the Universe have Created Itself?”

I wonder if the author is aware that the question he proposes is grounded on an invalid concept, but what is an invalid concept?

It is a thought in the mind of us humans that is effectively self-contradictory, like say the thought of a married bachelor.

Another example is that of a square circle.

A self-created universe, a married bachelor, a square circle, and all such self-contradictory concepts are invalid concepts.

The offshoot of an invalid concept is that it has no intrinsic possibility of realization in the actual objective reality of being or existing.

So that it has no potential neither from itself nor from another self of coming into existence at all: not from what I call active potency toward self-realization, i.e. itself making itself come into existence by itself, and neither from passive potency, i.e. it being made to come into existence by another self or thing that is already existing and thus not corresponding to an invalid concept in turn.

It is irrational and even insane for human beings as rational entities to engage in the discussion of the possibility of the existence of an invalid concept, not so that it has a corresponding object in the actual objective reality of being or existence.

On the above considerations, the thread “Could the Universe have Created Itself?” is an invalid thread.

I have not read the pages of this thread coming after page 1, but I will say now that posters involved in its discussion are both irrational and insane, unless they are exclusively into the analysis of how socalled physics cosmologists do try to convince folks that a universe could and did create itself.

So, posters here who are cautious on not thinking and writing irrationally and even insanely should rather be occupied with how the socalled physics cosmologists are into all manners of ambiguity, in producing mountains of words to amaze naive folks that no God is needed, the universe could and did create itself.

KingCoil

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Is this thread still going ? think we have coved all bases by now…
pity it can not be condensed into a short read…
King Coil..... I like your last comment.

 

[Tomdstone]

I still have not yet finished with page 1 of this thread.

The issue of this thread as formulated in the title is founded on what I call an invalid concept.

Here is the title: “Could the Universe have Created Itself?”

I wonder if the author is aware that the question he proposes is grounded on an invalid concept, but what is an invalid concept?

It is a thought in the mind of us humans that is effectively self-contradictory, like say the thought of a married bachelor.

Another example is that of a square circle.

A self-created universe, a married bachelor, a square circle, and all such self-contradictory concepts are invalid concepts.

The offshoot of an invalid concept is that it has no intrinsic possibility of realization in the actual objective reality of being or existing.

So that it has no potential neither from itself nor from another self of coming into existence at all: not from what I call active potency toward self-realization, i.e. itself making itself come into existence by itself, and neither from passive potency, i.e. it being made to come into existence by another self or thing that is already existing and thus not corresponding to an invalid concept in turn.

It is irrational and even insane for human beings as rational entities to engage in the discussion of the possibility of the existence of an invalid concept, not so that it has a corresponding object in the actual objective reality of being or existence.

On the above considerations, the thread “Could the Universe have Created Itself?” is an invalid thread.

I have not read the pages of this thread coming after page 1, but I will say now that posters involved in its discussion are both irrational and insane, unless they are exclusively into the analysis of how socalled physics cosmologists do try to convince folks that a universe could and did create itself.

So, posters here who are cautious on not thinking and writing irrationally and even insanely should rather be occupied with how the socalled physics cosmologists are into all manners of ambiguity, in producing mountains of words to amaze naive folks that no God is needed, the universe could and did create itself.

KingCoil

It may have been worded inaccurately, but the idea of the question is whether or not the existence of the universe demands the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Being. I don;t see any contradiction if the question is stated more precisely.

 

[KingCoil]

It may have been worded inaccurately, but the idea of the question is whether or not the existence of the universe demands the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Being. I don;t see any contradiction if the question is stated more precisely.

I propose that we hold in abeyance the adjectives, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, but first we work on the idea instead namely:

• whether or not the existence of the universe demands the existence of -]an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving*/-] a creator Being of the universe.

Why put in abeyance the attributes of all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving?

Because it is the more logical and intelligent issue to take up first: for what does it avail for us and for God if He had not before anything else created the universe in which we exist and move and have our residence?

KingCoil

 

[DCNBILL]

I’m amazed that I happened to reread this thread a just the right time.

But to answer your question, truth doesn’t depend on perception. the truth is simply the real way things work, regardless of whether or not anyone is aware of it.

I think that without some kind of mind to conceptualize “a truth” then there would never be any understanding or concept or idea of how the real way things work, ergo no truth.

Thanks for catching that btw