Could the Universe have Created Itself?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
If God is **totally **undefined the term “God” is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Please see a collection of books known as the bible.
*NB “an area of uncertainty” does not entail **total ***uncertainty - which amounts to agnosticism.
Click to expand...
NB proof involves total certainty, which Francis thus implicitly rules out.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I hate to say it but your opinions and interpretations of what the Pope said are just opinions. I can’t see any point in arguing against private opinions. Of course I interpret his message differently :D. You have a right to think what you want and so do I. Now if you can point to a specific, concrete example where the Pope says that Thomas’ First Way or the rest of the Five Ways are pointless and incorrect, or that anything else Thomas taught that is contrary to reason and the thinking and teaching of the Church, then please do so. Unless you can do that you are wasting your time.
Click to expand...
It could be seen as an insult to the Pope for you to imply he is so wishy washy that any interpretation of his words will do as well as any other.

It is very simple to make this concrete: Francis says “The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.”

Proof involves certainty, it is not a proof unless you are certain. But you cannot be certain and have doubt. And Francis says doubt is essential if we are to avoid a closed mind and arrogance.

He is talking about an attitude of discernment, to encounter the living God rather than a dead hypothesis. I’m not making a debating point here, Francis is talking about spirituality.
 
inocente said:
It could be seen as an insult to the Pope for you to imply he is so wishy washy that any interpretation of his words will do as well as any other.

It is very simple to make this concrete: Francis says “The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.”

Proof involves certainty, it is not a proof unless you are certain. But you cannot be certain and have doubt. And Francis says doubt is essential if we are to avoid a closed mind and arrogance.

He is talking about an attitude of discernment, to encounter the living God rather than a dead hypothesis. I’m not making a debating point here, Francis is talking about spirituality.
Click to expand...
You’re straining the gnant. It may seem strange to you but Catholics are not required to believe every word uttered by a Pope or with his every thought, We are required to believe when he is exercising his teaching office and expressing known Magisterial teaching. An " Exortation " is not a teaching document, it is a document meant to encourage the troops ( all us Catholics ) to " get with it. "

One draws a distinction between " spirituality " and reasoning. If you are suggesting the Pope is saying that we cannot use reason to approach God or know anything about Him from reason, he would strongly disagree with you. And I will predict that before long Frances will make that point absolutely clear, as have all past Popes I know of - for at least the last 150 years.

The Church has never said Thomas’ Five Ways constituted certain proof for the existence of God or that Thomas presented any absolutely " certain " proof about anything concerning God, the Catholic Faith or anything else. That isn’t the way the Church operates. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will see how the Church operates. It references Thomas hundreds of times and Augustine even more. It also references Scotus, St. Frances, Teresa of Avila, and many others. And the teaching of these and others are used to help explain Catholic teaching. But it is Tradition which determines What Catholic teaching actually is, and Tradition is the teaching of Our Lord as handed on by the Apostiles.

The Church speaks of converging and convincing arguments which can lead to the knowledge of God. The degree of " certainty " in these ways varies. Blessed John Henry Neuman in Grammar of Ascent says much the same thing. However the Church teaches De Fide " “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” ( Vatican 1 ) Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.( Gen. 1:27 )

Notice how philosophical that statment is. It comes very close to endorsing the arguments given by Thomas. It certainly supports the value of using human reason reflecting on creation, conscience, nature to reach God ( see pgs 14- 17, CCC ). But of course the Church also teaches that man must be enlightend by Divine Revelation. ( pg 16, CCC). The Church does teach De Fide that God Exists and also many facts of His Nature. ( too long to mention here )

So I doubt very much if Frances would say that the God Thomas sees in the Five Ways is a " dead hypotheses. "

Linus2nd
 
inocente said:
Code: 
			**Re: Could the Universe have Created Itself?** 			 			 			 		  		 		 			 			*
If God is **totally **
Click to expand...
Indeed. “He Who Is” is a good example.
Code: 
 	 		 			 				*
NB “an area of uncertainty” does not entail **total **
Click to expand...
*uncertainty - which amounts to agnosticism.
NB proof involves total certainty, which Francis thus implicitly rules out.
*

I’m glad you follow Francis rather than John Smyth. 😉
Click to expand...
 
Tomdstone said:
NBC has reported that quark gluon plasma experiments at the LHC ALICE detector support string theory.
nbcnews.com/science/big-bang-machine-revs-again-6C10403296?franchiseSlug=sciencemain
Click to expand...
Rubbish. This is the typical the " theoretical community " publishes to keep the funding rolling in. Futher, these guys are fighting for their livelihoods, they know they are on the roops and better come up with something. Read Bankrupting Physics.by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones, one of several in the last few years exposing the warts on the " choir boys. "

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You’re straining the gnant. It may seem strange to you but Catholics are not required to believe every word uttered by a Pope or with his every thought, We are required to believe when he is exercising his teaching office and expressing known Magisterial teaching. An " Exortation " is not a teaching document, it is a document meant to encourage the troops ( all us Catholics ) to " get with it. "
Click to expand...
Sounds like the small print in a contract!
One draws a distinction between " spirituality " and reasoning. If you are suggesting the Pope is saying that we cannot use reason to approach God or know anything about Him from reason, he would strongly disagree with you. And I will predict that before long Frances will make that point absolutely clear, as have all past Popes I know of - for at least the last 150 years.
Click to expand...
No, I’m suggesting that he’s saying God cannot be both real to us and at the same time be a theory to us. I mean you don’t theorize about whether your friends and family exist.
The Church speaks of converging and convincing arguments which can lead to the knowledge of God. The degree of " certainty " in these ways varies. Blessed John Henry Neuman in Grammar of Ascent says much the same thing. However the Church teaches De Fide " "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." ( Vatican 1 ) Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.( Gen. 1:27 )
Click to expand...
Notice how philosophical that statment is. It comes very close to endorsing the arguments given by Thomas. It certainly supports the value of using human reason reflecting on creation, conscience, nature to reach God ( see pgs 14- 17, CCC ). But of course the Church also teaches that man must be enlightend by Divine Revelation. ( pg 16, CCC). The Church does teach De Fide that God Exists and also many facts of His Nature. ( too long to mention here )
Click to expand...
So I doubt very much if Frances would say that the God Thomas sees in the Five Ways is a " dead hypotheses. "
Click to expand...
I’d have thought Romans 1:20 is sufficient for the part I bolded, otherwise more or less agreed, but as I said it’s about an attitude of discernment, to encounter the living God rather than a dead hypothesis.

That said, medieval reasoning faces huge challenges: in the last three centuries there’s been the Age of Enlightenment, On The Origin Of The Species, and the 20th century revolution in cosmology (at the start of that century it was thought that ours is the only galaxy, know we know it is only one of billions). It’s hard to imagine a bigger shift in thought, and now we have physicists giving cogent arguments that the universe could have created itself and the laws of nature could be accidents.

I’m not backing any sides here, just saying that the natural light of human reason changes.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Rubbish. This is the typical the " theoretical community " publishes to keep the funding rolling in. Futher, these guys are fighting for their livelihoods, they know they are on the roops and better come up with something. Read Bankrupting Physics.by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones, one of several in the last few years exposing the warts on the " choir boys. "

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why the results obtained from the Maldecena duality or the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence are rubbish. Can you explain your objection to applying AdS/CFT theory to calculate the shear viscosity of quark gluon plasma and why you think that the verified prediction of the theoretical calculations are rubbish? It was not clear to physicists how to use the theory of quantum chromodynamics in the quark gluon problems, but the use of the AdS/CFT correspondence allowed them to transfer the problem to string theory and come up with a predicted value for the viscosity of the quark gluon plasma. These results have been verified experimentally.
arxiv.org/pdf/0804.4015v4.pdf
 
inocente said:
Sounds like the small print in a contract!

No, I’m suggesting that he’s saying God cannot be both real to us and at the same time be a theory to us. I mean you don’t theorize about whether your friends and family exist.

I’d have thought Romans 1:20 is sufficient for the part I bolded, otherwise more or less agreed, but as I said it’s about an attitude of discernment, to encounter the living God rather than a dead hypothesis.

That said, medieval reasoning faces huge challenges: in the last three centuries there’s been the Age of Enlightenment, On The Origin Of The Species, and the 20th century revolution in cosmology (at the start of that century it was thought that ours is the only galaxy, know we know it is only one of billions). It’s hard to imagine a bigger shift in thought, and now we have physicists giving cogent arguments that the universe could have created itself and the laws of nature could be accidents.

I’m not backing any sides here, just saying that the natural light of human reason changes.
Click to expand...
And I agree with everything you said here - rightly understood. No one ever suggested that it was sufficient to stop at the First Cause. The reasoning behind Thomas’ argumentation was that this was supposed to prepare man to accept the God of Revelation. And that is the Church’s reasoning as well - which you will see by reading the part of the Catechism I referrenced above. It was to dispose us to Faith. Not a question of either/or.

Well, the cows are fed and milked but that d–ned Crown Vic started acting up again. Don’t ever buy one ( I got this one on the cheap from an Estate sale ). It should be against the law for anyone but a specially trained mechanic to own one!!!

Linus2nd
 
Tomdstone said:
NBC has reported that quark gluon plasma experiments at the LHC ALICE detector support string theory.
nbcnews.com/science/big-bang-machine-revs-again-6C10403296?franchiseSlug=sciencemain
Click to expand...
Reading the news puts me in a “real life” frame of mind.

What got my attention was:
“A good number of scientists say failing to find the Higgs boson at the LHC would actually be more intriguing than finding it — even though they admit it’d be hard to tell that to the politicians who have funded the $10 billion international project.”

$10 billion!!!

Politicians who have funded???!! Ask my accountant who is doing the funding!!!

Higgs boson, ah yes the God particle. We must keep the news-entertainment industry occupied with the latest fad.

I hope regular poster Robert Sock doesn’t see this; it will give him apoplexy.
 
Aloysium said:
Reading the news puts me in a “real life” frame of mind.

What got my attention was:
“A good number of scientists say failing to find the Higgs boson at the LHC would actually be more intriguing than finding it — even though they admit it’d be hard to tell that to the politicians who have funded the $10 billion international project.”

$10 billion!!!

Politicians who have funded???!! Ask my accountant who is doing the funding!!!

Higgs boson, ah yes the God particle. We must keep the news-entertainment industry occupied with the latest fad.

I hope regular poster Robert Sock doesn’t see this; it will give him apoplexy.
Click to expand...
The amount spent on scientific research is only a drop in the bucket when you compare what the USA has spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan:
nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t understand why the results obtained from the Maldecena duality or the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence are rubbish. Can you explain your objection to applying AdS/CFT theory to calculate the shear viscosity of quark gluon plasma and why you think that the verified prediction of the theoretical calculations are rubbish? It was not clear to physicists how to use the theory of quantum chromodynamics in the quark gluon problems, but the use of the AdS/CFT correspondence allowed them to transfer the problem to string theory and come up with a predicted value for the viscosity of the quark gluon plasma. These results have been verified experimentally.
arxiv.org/pdf/0804.4015v4.pdf
Click to expand...
Hey, I think science is great, real science that is. Read the book I recommended, then see what you think. First I don’t believe the media on anything any more. But, even if trur, it has nothing to do with the O.P.

Linus2nd
 
tonyrey said:
You quote him, presumably to support your point of view. I don’t recall you quoting John Smyth… 😉
Click to expand...
He would make a half-decent Baptist or Pentecostal preacher with a bit of polish. 😃

I don’t know how to break this to you but John Smyth died 400 years ago. We don’t have saints or anything, so he’s not exactly newsworthy and is rarely if ever mentioned.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
And I agree with everything you said here - rightly understood. No one ever suggested that it was sufficient to stop at the First Cause. The reasoning behind Thomas’ argumentation was that this was supposed to prepare man to accept the God of Revelation. And that is the Church’s reasoning as well - which you will see by reading the part of the Catechism I referrenced above. It was to dispose us to Faith. Not a question of either/or.
Click to expand...
Optional then, like slapping yourself with a wet fish. 😃
Well, the cows are fed and milked but that d–ned Crown Vic started acting up again. Don’t ever buy one ( I got this one on the cheap from an Estate sale ). It should be against the law for anyone but a specially trained mechanic to own one!!!
Click to expand...
Is that a Ford sedan? We don’t have many American cars here, no one would buy them. Ford sells proper cars that go round corners and have a European pedigree like the Focus. I just looked it up on Wiki, and apparently it’s what the Pope drives.
 
Aloysium said:
Reading the news puts me in a “real life” frame of mind.

What got my attention was:
“A good number of scientists say failing to find the Higgs boson at the LHC would actually be more intriguing than finding it — even though they admit it’d be hard to tell that to the politicians who have funded the $10 billion international project.”

$10 billion!!!

Politicians who have funded???!! Ask my accountant who is doing the funding!!!

Higgs boson, ah yes the God particle. We must keep the news-entertainment industry occupied with the latest fad.

I hope regular poster Robert Sock doesn’t see this; it will give him apoplexy.
Click to expand...
Big science pays for itself. That’s why politicians fund it, there are always unexpected benefits. For instance, Tim Berners-Lee originally invented the worldwide web at CERN to cope with the vast amounts of data which needed to be shared.

Amazing how you use tools you would not have without science to criticize science.

And you might like to rethink your priorities. The US spends $660 billion a year just on its military.
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t understand why the results obtained from the Maldecena duality or the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence are rubbish. Can you explain your objection to applying AdS/CFT theory to calculate the shear viscosity of quark gluon plasma and why you think that the verified prediction of the theoretical calculations are rubbish? It was not clear to physicists how to use the theory of quantum chromodynamics in the quark gluon problems, but the use of the AdS/CFT correspondence allowed them to transfer the problem to string theory and come up with a predicted value for the viscosity of the quark gluon plasma. These results have been verified experimentally.
arxiv.org/pdf/0804.4015v4.pdf
Click to expand...
Tom
A couple of questions:
  1. If Maldacena duality provides a non-perturbative formulation of string theory with certain boundary conditions; just what are those boundary conditions?
  2. Since anti-deSitter space has a negative (attractive) cosmological constant, isn’t that in conflict with a current observation of a positive cosmological constant and an accelerated expansion of the universe?
  3. Are you a physicist? BS, MS, PhD?
Yppop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top