Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[Peter_Plato]

---

Lógos Sokratikós
…
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to accept this, therefore, it is not always and everywhere wrong.

 

[Tomdstone]

Certainly, if a claim logically entails that “everything tastes like vanilla” and would continue to do so to this day, then you might have a case for saying Megagawd did not make everything taste - in any lasting way - like vanilla. However, if the claim was that Megagawd made everything that was part of the king’s banquet taste like vanilla, you have not disproven that claim by demonstrating that your breakfast cereal does not, today, taste like vanilla or that Megagawd could not have done such an act in the past because he does not do so to your repast today.

Likewise, you cannot count the fact that you have never witnessed anyone rise from the dead as disproof of the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. The Resurrection of Jesus was claimed to have been a special case for special reasons. You can’t claim that because human beings are not typically raised from the dead that Jesus COULD NOT have been. It is only your own metaphysical presumptions that lead you to that belief. It isn’t even a case of “lack of evidence” because exemplary eye-witness accounts of the event do exist and it is only a bias against miracles that would lead you to discount them. If these accounts had left out all supernatural references you would have no issue concerning their authenticity.

This method of argumentation is somewhat related to the question of causality of the whole universe since it involves a leap from some particular cases to a universal statement. What I mean is that we see that everything on earth has a cause. The argument then leaps to conclude that the whole universe (or multiverse) must have a cause. Wouldn’t this be an unwarranted leap in logic similar to what was illustrated in your examples above? We cannot always conclude a universal principle from some particular cases.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If a certain text is to be interpreted allegorically, it doesn’t give actual information: you sort it out, so the text isn’t telling you what to believe, you are telling the text what to believe. If you cherry-pick what to believe and how to interpret it, then you are not letting the text tell you anything you did not decide to believe to begin with.

That is why Christianity is the most split up religion in the world without exception and by a wide margin. No one can really tell what a text says if you shouldn’t take it literally due to self contradiction and contradiction with reality.

Until the time of Martin Luther, Christianity was not the most split up religion in the world.

However, if you want to look at a truly split up band of thinkers, look at modern humanism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This method of argumentation is somewhat related to the question of causality of the whole universe since it involves a leap from some particular cases to a universal statement. What I mean is that we see that everything on earth has a cause. The argument then leaps to conclude that the whole universe (or multiverse) must have a cause. Wouldn’t this be an unwarranted leap in logic similar to what was illustrated in your examples above? We cannot always conclude a universal principle from some particular cases.

Why would it be an unwarranted leap in logic or any more unwarranted than the notion that the universe could have caused itself?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

LogosSokratikos;11537508:

It is not my job to collect the evidence in favor of your position.

Actually, it is your job if you have an interest in being fair-minded on the issue. If not, then no amount of evidence that you have NO interest in will be sufficient to persuade you otherwise, since you will remain blithely ignorant or in denial concerning it.

So, obviously, no one can MAKE you consider the evidence, but your failure even to be open to it does speak volumes about the scope of the evidence you actually do consider.

No. If it’s a debate, one does his/her job, the other theirs. This is pretty basic.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

It seems to me that cherry picking is precisely what you are doing regarding passages from Genesis. Considering that science and scientific methods for gathering evidence were not formally developed for several thousand years AFTER the Genesis accounts were written, for you to claim these accounts were making “scientific” claims is preposterous at best.

I’m sorry, I had NO idea Yahweh required science. I guess omniscience is not what it’s reputed to be.

BTW, I don’t think you are complete aware of what ‘cherry picking’ means. It’s kind of like choosing what you’re going to eat from a salad bar. I do not pick and choose what to believe from Genesis. I prefer non-fiction. You know, less tricky.

You are reading your own scientific bias into them

There is no such thing as “scientific bias”. And even if there were, you’re going to make me blush. Science is sorting out truth from fiction instead of calling stuff true because someone with a funny hat says it is. That isn’t bias, it’s mercilessly beating the guts out of our favorite biases and pet beliefs. It’s in fact so effective people of all cultures consider it trustworthy. Gets people to the moon and saves lives, which seems to impress people.

Yet, you “read into” the Genesis text your “scientific” expectation as if it must be true that the author of Genesis was making a modern scientific claim by using “day” as a technically precise and scientific unit of measurement, when, in fact, the author COULD NOT have been.

You mean “day” means thousands of years, or maybe millions? That would be something.

Again, your lack of fair-mindedness is showing. You claim as “positive evidence” that the followers of Jesus “cannot” perform miracles, yet on what grounds do you dismiss the miracle accounts in the New Testament and those in the lives of the saints? Have you looked into these miracles, or is your position one of dismissal by metaphysical presumption?

Well, this can be resolved squarely with an experiment. Go fetch a glass from your kitchen, take a bottle of sodium hypoclorite bleach, fill the glass and bottoms up. According to Mark 16:17-18, your faith in Jesus Christ shall save you from sure death. You’ll make a believer in miracles out of me. And also a believer in Jesus’ non-empty promises.

Actual evidence has a very limited scope since what counts as “actual” depends upon predetermined standards for evidence which is, in fact, biased against the supernatural, since only physical evidence is allowed to count, and biased in favour of what our predispositions determine the evidence should look like. How would we even have a clue as to what supernatural causation would bring into the explanatory picture when, by method, only physical explanatory possibilities are sought?

No courts. That’s the beauty of it. Just a glass, 8 fluid ounces of NaClO, and your faith. I will quietly sit in front and not say a word while Jesus fulfills his promise.

Certainly, if a claim logically entails that “everything tastes like vanilla” and would continue to do so to this day, then you might have a case for saying Megagawd did not make everything taste - in any lasting way - like vanilla. However, if the claim was that Megagawd made everything that was part of the king’s banquet taste like vanilla, you have not disproven that claim by demonstrating that your breakfast cereal does not, today, taste like vanilla or that Megagawd could not have done such an act in the past because he does not do so to your repast today.

I totally agree! That’s why I would find a follower of Jesus Christ and have him/her drink a glass of poisonous liquid and not die. I’m so glad the Bible makes believing so straightforward. A good God would not make empty promises or use slippery language when making a covenant (=deal) would s/he? It’s a pleasure to make deals with honest non-greasy fellas.

The Resurrection of Jesus was claimed to have been a special case for special reasons. You can’t claim that because human beings are not typically raised from the dead that Jesus COULD NOT have been. It is only your own metaphysical presumptions that lead you to that belief. It isn’t even a case of “lack of evidence” because exemplary eye-witness accounts of the event do exist and it is only a bias against miracles that would lead you to discount them. If these accounts had left out all supernatural references you would have no issue concerning their authenticity.

I agree. Just because Jack Jr can’t lift a log doesn’t mean Jack Sr, in his day, could have lifted it. It totally makes sense. Nevertheless, it’s a fish that got away story, like the ones Joseph Smith of the Mormons said. The magical gold plates. Oh, you missed them, they just flew away to heaven, isn’t it a pitty? They just flew out of here and you can’t check the veracity of my claims. NO PROBLEM: give me your available evdence. You must have something.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I agree. Just because Jack Jr can’t lift a log doesn’t mean Jack Sr, in his day, could have lifted it. It totally makes sense. Nevertheless, it’s a fish that got away story, like the ones Joseph Smith of the Mormons said. The magical gold plates. Oh, you missed them, they just flew away to heaven, isn’t it a pitty? They just flew out of here and you can’t check the veracity of my claims. NO PROBLEM: give me your available evdence. You must have something.

We have a created universe as evidence of the feasibility of a Creator.

What feasible evidence do you have that the universe created itself?

Zip. Zero. Nada.

 

[Tomdstone]

Until the time of Martin Luther, Christianity was not the most split up religion in the world.

In the East, you had the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and in the West there were a few Protestant type groups even before Martin Luther.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why would it be an unwarranted leap in logic or any more unwarranted than the notion that the universe could have caused itself?

Because that fact that something is true on earth, which is one extremely tiny part of the universe, does not imply that this would be true on the universe as a whole.

 

[Tomdstone]

We have a created universe as evidence of the feasibility of a Creator.

When you say that “we have a created universe” you are assuming that the universe is created or has been created. You are assuming that the universe as a whole has a cause.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

****Lógos Sokratikós
Unanswered questions are far less dangerous than unquestioned answers.
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. ****

This is not how we approach God. There will NEVER be sufficient evidence for those who do not want God to exist.

As to knowing God up close and personal, that has to be earned. As a former Catholic, you know this is what you have renounced.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the East, you had the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and in the West there were a few Protestant type groups even before Martin Luther.

But Christianity has had the problem from the first century. Paul even refers to false teachers. Other religions of the world have been through the same kind of internal revolt. That includes Islam.

When you see the fracturing of secular philosophies throughout the world, you know that this problem is not unique to religion or to Christianity. It is in the nature of the beast.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because that fact that something is true on earth, which is one extremely tiny part of the universe, does not imply that this would be true on the universe as a whole.

The principle of causality pervades the universe. Where did you get the notion that it is limited to Earth?

The Big Bang was caused by something. The Big Bang caused many things, including the creation of light and the expansion of the universe which is still going on.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When you say that “we have a created universe” you are assuming that the universe is created or has been created. You are assuming that the universe as a whole has a cause.

The universe did not exist until the Big Bang. It is reasonable to i9nfer that it was created, even if you can’t exxplain how it was created. It is certainly more reasonable than to believe that it was never created, that it alwyas existed. For that there is no evidence whatever.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

We have a created universe as evidence of the feasibility of a Creator.

What feasible evidence do you have that the universe created itself?

Zip. Zero. Nada.

Wordplay. Saying something like “a created universe necessitates a Creator”, is like asking “We have a murdered man, this shows we need a murderer” before establishing if it was murder, suicide or natural causes. It begs the question.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

The universe did not exist until the Big Bang. It is reasonable to i9nfer that it was created, even if you can’t exxplain how it was created. It is certainly more reasonable than to believe that it was never created, that it alwyas existed. For that there is no evidence whatever.

There is no evidence either way. It could have been created, and then that’s just one possibility. Another is that the universe came to exist in the context of the multiverse, a theory without much evidence either.

Scientists don’t care if there’s no answer yet. They keep working without going, “Since I don’t know and I’m a Hindu, I conclude beyond doubt that the universe arose like the primordial lotus flower from Vishnu’s navel.” That only would not be scientific, it would not be rational.

So, do I know what happened? No. Do I boast to know what happened? Not either. I decide it’s most reasonable to remain agnostic in a matter which I ignore. Any premature conclusion would be irrational.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wordplay. Saying something like “a created universe necessitates a Creator”, is like asking “We have a murdered man, this shows we need a murderer” before establishing if it was murder, suicide or natural causes. It begs the question.

I prefer the word “unexplained” to “created.” In order to fully understand the existence of the universe, our quest for a sufficient explanation for why the universe exists or why there is something rather than nothing, legitimately, requires a full and complete accounting. It is not that we are looking specifically for a “murderer” because we have a dead body, but, rather, because we have a dead body we are compelled to look for a “cause of death” that sufficiently explains the dead body. The dead body could not explain itself.

The universe (space, time, matter and energy) does not explain its own existence as a physical entity because its constituent physical components all “began” a finite time ago, so physical, i.e., scientifically quantifiable, explanations cannot serve to sufficiently explain their own coming into existence.

In other words, natural explanations cannot serve to explain their own genesis because natural causes did not predate their own existence. The natural can, then, only be explained by some “supernatural” existent because no natural existents were around to “create” the natural universe.

Your “murdered man” example fails because with the “creation” of the universe, it had to be “premeditated” and thus “murder” because no natural causes were available to “bring about” the “death.” These causes cannot sufficiently explain the universe since they are, in sum total, what it is that requires explanation.

We can’t appeal to the effect in order to explain the effect - that would be begging the question. We can’t accept “the heart stopped beating” as a sufficient reason to explain why the heart stopped beating. The universe cannot have a natural explanation since all of what constitutes “natural” began when the universe did, which is very much the same as claiming that the man died because his heart stopped beating sufficiently explains why the man died.

You, as the coroner, would be laughed off the crime scene, if you insisted that no murder investigation was necessary because the cause of death was (obviously a natural one,) i.e., the victim died because his heart stopped beating - an entirely natural occurrence.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Cummon guys, 45 more to reach the millennium, I would love it if in that final dash for the post that one of you would give out with a position I had not already heard or worked out. :newidea:

 

[inocente]

Innocente

Why do you persist in misinterpreting Pope Francis? Re your last post.

I’m glad you are reading Pope Francis and the CCC. However you still don’t get it. Pope Francis, as Pope and as a faithful Catholic, believers all that the Church teaches. From the CCC, [snip]

And this is what Thomas is saying in S.T., Part 1, Ques 1.

The CCC is an aid for teachers, not a legal contract. Your “believing all that the Church teaches” sounds like doublespeak for “slavishly accepting all dogma without question”. Francis says that would not be a good idea:

"If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things."

“Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”

americamagazine.org/pope-interview*

Read his interview. Either you are right and the Church has nothing left to say, all it can do is cling to dead dogma, or the Pope is right and the best is yet to come. Who will win in this schism for the spiritual soul of the church? Who indeed.

 

[inocente]

I’d have thought you were going to express your own thoughts instead of Pope Francis. We know Francis is a loyal son of the Church. What we want to know is where you are coming from. That post didn’t tell us much. For example, do you have a beef with the Catholic Church? What is your beef? That is what we have all been trying to find out and the question you seem to have been dodging since day 1.

Yes, we know Christianity 101. The Catholic Church wrote the lesson plans.

When you say “we”, you mean “you” - we almost got to 1,000 posts on this thread without any sectarianism, then you came along.