Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[AnimalSpirits]

Yes.

If the universe couldn’t create itself then God must have done it.

But then we would know that God exists.

But then we wouldn’t need faith.

But then Jesus would not have said we need faith.

Therefore, by God’s own Word, the universe could have created itself.

QED

I am using this as a meta logical argument from now on “If you could prove God was real, you wouldn’t need faith, so your proof must be flawed.” But one could counter that if an argument showed that a higher power had to exists, one could require faith to determine which religion, if any, was describing that higher power he best.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Your surrender is accepted.

If you mean QED, 'tis quod erat demonstrandum, meaning “I dun proved it, so there”.

Not by the hair of your chiny chin chin, not in your wildest dreams! I know you think you have walked all over us, but you are disillusioned. The Five Ways stand undefeated. It is the critics who are defficient, who are blinded " by this world. "

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

I am using this as a meta logical argument from now on “If you could prove God was real, you wouldn’t need faith, so your proof must be flawed.” But one could counter that if an argument showed that a higher power had to exists, one could require faith to determine which religion, if any, was describing that higher power he best.

An objection which misses the object!

 

[Aloysium]

I am using this as a meta logical argument from now on “If you could prove God was real, you wouldn’t need faith, so your proof must be flawed.” But one could counter that if an argument showed that a higher power had to exists, one could require faith to determine which religion, if any, was describing that higher power he best.

I probably see faith differently, so I believe it can arise from a logical argument.
One has, for example, faith in one’s spouse. All the facts point to her being the person you believe her to be and the more you know her the more you have faith in her.
The issue with proofs, of course is that the other person has to be able to understand. People in general do not like to be told this, as they interpret it as being called stupid.

 

[yppop]

Thanks for the information.

From what you stated above and other things I have read, there are events/objects/whatever that are smaller than a plank length.

Al,
For your information, both the Planck length (lp) and the Planck time (tp) are derived from three fundamental constants: the Planck constant - (h); the gravitational constant - (G); and the speed of light -(c).

Dividing: lp/tp = c. It seems to me that if the minimum interval of length was smaller than lp, the speed of light would be different.

The minimum distance that can be observed at the present time is 10^-16 cm. and the minimum time that can be observed is 10^-26 sec. both about 10^17 larger that the Planck length and time. Planck length and time are the limits of minimization.

I am in awe of God’s creation.

Me too!!!
Yppop

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes.

If the universe couldn’t create itself then God must have done it.

But then we would know that God exists.

Non sequitur

 

[catholictiger]

Yes.

If the universe couldn’t create itself then God must have done it.

But then we would know that God exists.

But then we wouldn’t need faith.

But then Jesus would not have said we need faith.

Therefore, by God’s own Word, the universe could have created itself.

QED

not really

as I have said in other threads I think the important thing to understand is that God primarily causes the universe. What I mean is that God created the universe and continually sustains it’s existence. We can arrive at this from reason alone and faith is not required to come to this understanding. But that doesn’t put into question the concept of faith in any sense of the word. God being the creator of the universe is not the only thing necessary to be Christian I would actually say that this is a very small aspect of it. Reason cannot argue that we are sinners who deserve hell, reason cannot argue that God could become man and save us from our sins, reason cannot come to the knowledge of the trinity, and reason cannot our eternal destiny is either heaven or hell. Only through faith can we come to this understanding.

 

[inocente]

I am using this as a meta logical argument from now on “If you could prove God was real, you wouldn’t need faith, so your proof must be flawed.” But one could counter that if an argument showed that a higher power had to exists, one could require faith to determine which religion, if any, was describing that higher power he best.

If it was possible to prove the existence of a higher power, it would then be possible to prove the properties of the higher power.

Ultimately we would unambiguously prove all the necessary attributes, although not of course any accidental properties, but we would probably already have concluded that the higher power cannot have accidentals by virtue of being the highest power.

At this point all theology would become redundant, the higher power would go into the science textbooks, and religions would become interchangable. You would go to whichever temple had the most convenient service times and most entertaining sound system .

 

[inocente]

Not by the hair of your chiny chin chin, not in your wildest dreams! I know you think you have walked all over us, but you are disillusioned. The Five Ways stand undefeated. It is the critics who are defficient, who are blinded " by this world. "

You are still using the royal “we”. I told you before, you and your glove puppet do not constitute “we”.

But I have a new ally, a guy who actually does have the right to use the royal “we”, a certain Pope Francis. He is also dead against turning God into a scientific hypothesis or philosophical argument:

“Finding God in all things is not an ‘empirical eureka.’ When we desire to encounter God, we would like to verify him immediately by an empirical method. But you cannot meet God this way. God is found in the gentle breeze perceived by Elijah. The senses that find God are the ones St. Ignatius called spiritual senses. Ignatius asks us to open our spiritual sensitivity to encounter God beyond a purely empirical approach. A contemplative attitude is necessary: it is the feeling that you are moving along the good path of understanding and affection toward things and situations. Profound peace, spiritual consolation, love of God and love of all things in God—this is the sign that you are on this right path.” - americamagazine.org/pope-interview

Compare this with John 3:5-8, where Jesus also talks of the Spirit as the wind (the Hebrew Ruach means spirit, wind or breath of God). "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

God meets us, His Spirit moves to His schedule not ours, and the Pope goes on to say we cannot find God in proofs, there must be room for doubt, there must be faith. The god people are certain they have proved is just a theory, just straw, not God Almighty, not the real deal.

That’s my :twocents:

 

[inocente]

not really

as I have said in other threads I think the important thing to understand is that God primarily causes the universe. What I mean is that God created the universe and continually sustains it’s existence. We can arrive at this from reason alone and faith is not required to come to this understanding. But that doesn’t put into question the concept of faith in any sense of the word. God being the creator of the universe is not the only thing necessary to be Christian I would actually say that this is a very small aspect of it. Reason cannot argue that we are sinners who deserve hell, reason cannot argue that God could become man and save us from our sins, reason cannot come to the knowledge of the trinity, and reason cannot our eternal destiny is either heaven or hell. Only through faith can we come to this understanding.

It’s always good to meet someone who is sola fide.

Thomas did also try to prove things such as original sin and the trinity. Thomists just love proofs.

I agree with you that in practice we walk by faith, and no one I know in real life is the slightest bit interested in these so-called proofs. But I think proofs are harmful, they necessarily reduce God in our thoughts to the status of a dead hypothesis, whereas God is alive and above all.

 

[alevanpa]

I am using this as a meta logical argument from now on “If you could prove God was real, you wouldn’t need faith, so your proof must be flawed.” But one could counter that if an argument showed that a higher power had to exists, one could require faith to determine which religion, if any, was describing that higher power he best.

Not true! Faith is not the requirement to believe that God created the universe. The universe is here, and we are part of it. That is undeniable. Faith is required to know that God created you, me and all mankind as special to him.

We must have Faith to believe that we, as humans, are entitled to life; entitled to be free of unjust coercion; entitled to use our faculties to create; and to use and own the things we create; and, not finally but as far as I want to go here, that, when this life is over, we will be judged how we interacted with our brother and sisters.

I lied: There is more that I want to say…We require Faith to know that God’s judgements are just; that there is a final reward for those who obey God’s laws, and punishment for those who don’t (Lazarus and Dives). But, we require most of all to believe that we are loved, all of us–the good and the bad–and that it is our personal choice whether to choose God or deny him.
That’s why we need to have Faith.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are still using the royal “we”. I told you before, you and your glove puppet do not constitute “we”.

But I have a new ally, a guy who actually does have the right to use the royal “we”, a certain Pope Francis. He is also dead against turning God into a scientific hypothesis or philosophical argument:

“Finding God in all things is not an ‘empirical eureka.’ When we desire to encounter God, we would like to verify him immediately by an empirical method. But you cannot meet God this way. God is found in the gentle breeze perceived by Elijah. The senses that find God are the ones St. Ignatius called spiritual senses. Ignatius asks us to open our spiritual sensitivity to encounter God beyond a purely empirical approach. A contemplative attitude is necessary: it is the feeling that you are moving along the good path of understanding and affection toward things and situations. Profound peace, spiritual consolation, love of God and love of all things in God—this is the sign that you are on this right path.” - americamagazine.org/pope-interview

Compare this with John 3:5-8, where Jesus also talks of the Spirit as the wind (the Hebrew Ruach means spirit, wind or breath of God). "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

God meets us, His Spirit moves to His schedule not ours, and the Pope goes on to say we cannot find God in proofs, there must be room for doubt, there must be faith. The god people are certain they have proved is just a theory, just straw, not God Almighty, not the real deal.

That’s my :twocents:

In Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis mentions St. Thomas two or three times. I guess he doesn’t agree with your warped interpretations of his intentions. Thomas would not agree with your analysis either. He would not have stopped at the Unmoved Mover and what reason alone could tell us about him. On the other hand God no where condemns the use of reason to arrive at truths nor to make more clear things which have been Divinely revealed. If you claim Sola Scriptura for your very odd position, why do you not hold that same position in regard to science. Seems a double standard to me.

Linus2nd

 

[catholictiger]

It’s always good to meet someone who is sola fide.

Thomas did also try to prove things such as original sin and the trinity. Thomists just love proofs.

I agree with you that in practice we walk by faith, and no one I know in real life is the slightest bit interested in these so-called proofs. But I think proofs are harmful, they necessarily reduce God in our thoughts to the status of a dead hypothesis, whereas God is alive and above all.

There are certain things in the Christian faith that we can only know by faith and can’t be argued for by reason. This is something I hope all Christians agree with. Can reason prove that Jesus died for our sins and that by his grace our sins are forgiven, no.

Speaking of Thomas he says that the universe cannot be demonstrated that it is finite or infinite. His believe in a finite universe comes from revelation, God demonstrated something that can’t be demonstrated by reason.

one last thing I’m not sole fides I’m fides quaerens intellectum, meaning I don’t stop at faith I look to understand my faith but without the faith I have which is a gift of God I can’t come to the understanding which I seek. Faith is primary for the christian faith but we have to try and understand what we believe.

 

[Tomdstone]

Dividing: lp/tp = c. It seems to me that if the minimum interval of length was smaller than lp, the speed of light would be different.

I don’t see how why the Planck length is the minimum interval of length. I thought that the birefringe method applied to gamma ray bursts lets you see distances which are many orders of magnitude shorter than the Planck length?
arxiv.org/abs/1102.2784
And according to the following article (see 5.3): "We have already discussed that there are various possibilities for a minimal length scale to make
itself noticeable, and this does not necessarily mean that it appears as a lower bound on the spatial
resolution. We could instead merely have a bound on products of spatial and temporal extensions.
So in this sense there might not be a minimal length, just a minimal length scale.
arxiv.org/abs/1203.6191

 

[inocente]

In Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis mentions St. Thomas two or three times. I guess he doesn’t agree with your warped interpretations of his intentions. Thomas would not agree with your analysis either. He would not have stopped at the Unmoved Mover and what reason alone could tell us about him. On the other hand God no where condemns the use of reason to arrive at truths nor to make more clear things which have been Divinely revealed. If you claim Sola Scriptura for your very odd position, why do you not hold that same position in regard to science. Seems a double standard to me.

Linus2nd

Past evidence is that when you make uncharitable personal remarks, it means you’re on the run. Why did you switch to a different text, too frightened to comment on the Pope’s interview then?

But your interpretation that Evangelii Gaudium is anything at all to do with your beloved five ways is terminally off base. Francis continues the same themes as the interview. He does not invite us to reason daily about unmoved movers. Nope. He writes “I invite all Christians, everywhere, at this very moment, to a renewed personal encounter with Jesus Christ, or at least an openness to letting him encounter them; I ask all of you to do this unfailingly each day.”

What’s that again? The Baptist did not have “warped interpretations of his intentions” but got them spot on? :flowers:

And Francis doesn’t refer to Thomas two or three times in Evangelii Gaudium, it’s more like nine or ten, none having anything to do with proving God, and none having anything to do with division. On the contrary, as Thomas would say, Francis points out that synthesis is key, and that faith plays the central role:

242 Dialogue between science and faith also belongs to the work of evangelization at the service of peace.[189] Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences”,[190] the Church proposes another path, which calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence. Faith is not fearful of reason; on the contrary, it seeks and trusts reason, since “the light of reason and the light of faith both come from God”[191] and cannot contradict each other. Evangelization is attentive to scientific advances and wishes to shed on them the light of faith and the natural law so that they will remain respectful of the centrality and supreme value of the human person at every stage of life. All of society can be enriched thanks to this dialogue, which opens up new horizons for thought and expands the possibilities of reason. This too is a path of harmony and peace. - [vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#Dialogue_between_faith,_reason_and_science3](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/f...ml#Dialogue_between_faith,_reason_and_science)

 

[inocente]

one last thing I’m not sole fides I’m fides quaerens intellectum, meaning I don’t stop at faith I look to understand my faith but without the faith I have which is a gift of God I can’t come to the understanding which I seek. Faith is primary for the christian faith but we have to try and understand what we believe.

Agreed. It was my attempt at a joke.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Past evidence is that when you make uncharitable personal remarks, it means you’re on the run. Why did you switch to a different text, too frightened to comment on the Pope’s interview then?

But your interpretation that Evangelii Gaudium is anything at all to do with your beloved five ways is terminally off base. Francis continues the same themes as the interview. He does not invite us to reason daily about unmoved movers. Nope. He writes “I invite all Christians, everywhere, at this very moment, to a renewed personal encounter with Jesus Christ, or at least an openness to letting him encounter them; I ask all of you to do this unfailingly each day.”

What’s that again? The Baptist did not have “warped interpretations of his intentions” but got them spot on? :flowers:

And Francis doesn’t refer to Thomas two or three times in Evangelii Gaudium, it’s more like nine or ten, none having anything to do with proving God, and none having anything to do with division. On the contrary, as Thomas would say, Francis points out that synthesis is key, and that faith plays the central role:

242 Dialogue between science and faith also belongs to the work of evangelization at the service of peace.[189] Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences”,[190] the Church proposes another path, which calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence. Faith is not fearful of reason; on the contrary, it seeks and trusts reason, since “the light of reason and the light of faith both come from God”[191] and cannot contradict each other. Evangelization is attentive to scientific advances and wishes to shed on them the light of faith and the natural law so that they will remain respectful of the centrality and supreme value of the human person at every stage of life. All of society can be enriched thanks to this dialogue, which opens up new horizons for thought and expands the possibilities of reason. This too is a path of harmony and peace. - [vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#Dialogue_between_faith,_reason_and_science3](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/f...ml#Dialogue_between_faith,_reason_and_science)

Again, your opinions are not objective. I have said nothing that is not true. You have interpreted them to enhance your peculiar point of view. To describe them as " warped " is not " uncharitable. " It would be dangerous to review " past history, " since that would expose the " pot " as well. And what does the " Baptist " have to do with anything?

Linus2nd

 

[JamesCaruso]

There are different levels of infinity.

You may be right, but it doesn’t seem to me that one infinity leaves much room for another in terms of universes being that a universe includes everything that is.

 

[Tomdstone]

You may be right, but it doesn’t seem to me that one infinity leaves much room for another in terms of universes being that a universe includes everything that is.

The infinite set of odd numbers {1,3,5,7…} leaves a whole lot of room for other infinities, including for example, the even numbers (2,4,6,8…}

 

[tonyrey]

The infinite set of odd numbers {1,3,5,7…} leaves a whole lot of room for other infinities, including for example, the even numbers (2,4,6,8…}

With regard to the topic, did numbers create themselves?