Creation of the Universe: Who, How, and Why?

[MindOverMatter]

An imperfect god is not worthy of being worshipped.

Worshiping? No. But I’d would share my biscuits.

 

[greylorn]

Galileo was a Catholic. He synthesized rational thought in a scientific method (with calculations and analysis). He also embraced revelation – meaning that, by faith, he accepted the divine teachings that God has given to mankind. He disagreed on a specific application of reason versus divine revelation but that is part of the on-going tension that has been part of the Church since the earliest councils, at least, and back to the apostolic age. The Nicene definitions on the Trinity are an example. The debates on the Biblical canon are another example.

Did that give you a slight clue to the meaning of what I said?

It only confuses me more. I do not think poetically. I think in terms of definable concepts, actions, logic. When I find contradicting notions within a book, I get skeptical. Finding same within a chapter makes me dubious as the the value of the chapter. When they appear within a single paragraph, such as the above, I pretty much figure that I might as well give up any search for coherent meaning.

That does not mean that there is no meaning to be found, just that experience has shown me that its finding won’t be worth the effort. And, we are off topic.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

I’m sorry, but Galileo clashed with convention, and he won, because he scientificly was pointing at nature, creation.

The perfect God is hardly coherent with this 13.7 billion years of gradual growth in complexity.
The perfect God also hardly is coherent with the slaughter that went on during T-Rex for instance.
The perfect God hardly is coherent with the Shoa, the Holocaust.
To me this whole universe is proof of something massive creative behind it. But don’t tell me its perfect. Its not. Its trying, searching, inventing.

And this is what comes forth, when science is taken into account.

 

[reggieM]

It only confuses me more. I do not think poetically. I think in terms of definable concepts, actions, logic. When I find contradicting notions within a book, I get skeptical. Finding same within a chapter makes me dubious as the the value of the chapter. When they appear within a single paragraph, such as the above, I pretty much figure that I might as well give up any search for coherent meaning.

That does not mean that there is no meaning to be found, just that experience has shown me that its finding won’t be worth the effort. And, we are off topic.

The Catholic religion is about death and Life. If you approach those two ideas only with “definable concepts, actions, logic” you will not find meaning. You can apply reason to those concepts to some extent – but reason is limited. Logic itself is limited and it does not correspond perfectly with nature.

So, it’s very much on-topic to discuss Death and Life, since you’ve asked the question “Why”?

Your death will be a paradox to life – a contradiction. Trying to explain the universe while avoiding this obvious paradox will provide erroneous solutions - answers which do not conform to reality.

Frederick Wilhemsen’s book: “The Paradoxical Nature of Reality” is a good one, even only just to reference the title.

The reason we have poetry, art, music, drama and such things – the reason human beings have Beethoven and Shakespeare is because the world cannot be explained by science and physics alone.

Christ deliberately taught using paradoxes in order to free people from the oppression of nature and the limits of logic. The very same teaching can be found in Zen and ecstatic religions.

God is about “transcendence”. The intelligence that created the universe is not bound by the universe. The intelligence that created the laws is not bound by the laws. To understand that Intelligence, one must be willing to accept that physical laws and natural processes are not eternal, necessary or absolute.

 

[reggieM]

But don’t tell me its perfect. Its not. Its trying, searching, inventing.

There’s a very simple point that you’ve confused. You think that I was telling you that the universe is perfect. I never did or would claim that. I state that God is perfect. This explains the confusion here.
You’re upholding a standard of perfection that you’ve gathered somewhere. Where did you see or experience this perfection? You look at the universe and conclude that it is not perfect. You must have some standard by which you measure such a thing.
This is the classic proof of the existence of the perfect God itself.
You can analyze the universe and identify flaws. If there was no standard of perfection, you would simply say that the Shoa was fine. It simply happened – it’s not good or bad, perfect or imperfect. That is what materialists should do since physical reality does not impose moral rules about good or bad. Nature just “is”. People, supposedly, act because of their genetic composition alone. Evolution is not directed to a goal, purpose or fulfillment. It just happens through accidental, random mutations and unintelligent, unconscious physical laws.

There is nothing to condemn in the Shoa in that point of view.

But you condemn it as “imperfect”.

It’s important to understand your own standards by which you measure perfection. What does it look like? Is your life and death part of the imperfection of the universe? If so, how imperfect are you? That’s also an important question when trying to understand the nature of the Creator or even trying to understand perfection.

 

[greylorn]

I’m sorry, but Galileo clashed with convention, and he won, because he scientificly was pointing at nature, creation.

The perfect God is hardly coherent with this 13.7 billion years of gradual growth in complexity.
The perfect God also hardly is coherent with the slaughter that went on during T-Rex for instance.
The perfect God hardly is coherent with the Shoa, the Holocaust.
To me this whole universe is proof of something massive creative behind it. But don’t tell me its perfect. Its not. Its trying, searching, inventing.

And this is what comes forth, when science is taken into account.

We agree. Any thoughts about potential purpose behind creation?

 

[greylorn]

Galileo was a Catholic. He synthesized rational thought in a scientific method (with calculations and analysis). He also embraced revelation – meaning that, by faith, he accepted the divine teachings that God has given to mankind. He disagreed on a specific application of reason versus divine revelation but that is part of the on-going tension that has been part of the Church since the earliest councils, at least, and back to the apostolic age. The Nicene definitions on the Trinity are an example. The debates on the Biblical canon are another example.

Did that give you a slight clue to the meaning of what I said?

Reggie,
I’m revisiting this one, mainly because Galileo is one of my science heroes. I regard him as having invented the “scientific method.” I’ve read the treatise (dialogues) that annoyed the pope, and a couple of biographies. From this background I’ve concluded that Galileo’s relationship to the Church shared many similarities to my own, which includes appreciation of some fundamental beliefs but a tendency to question any belief which is inherently illogical or contradicted by evidence from the physical world.

The feeling I got from his 1632 Dialogues was that by the time of their writing, he was exasperated by the attitude of ranking Church philosophers, who persisted upon holding revelation (i.e. ideas humans thought up and subsequently attributed to God) in higher regard than evidence from the God-created universe.

It was not simply reason vs. revelation for Galileo— it was the combination of reason plus evidence vs. revelation. This was something entirely new, which the Church rejected absolutely. The Pope’s address referenced elsewhere is the first real sign I’ve seen that the Church might be willing to reconsider its 17th century position.

 

[greylorn]

The Catholic religion is about death and Life. If you approach those two ideas only with “definable concepts, actions, logic” you will not find meaning. You can apply reason to those concepts to some extent – but reason is limited. Logic itself is limited and it does not correspond perfectly with nature.

Aren’t all religions about death and life?

I have been developing ideas normally considered to be the province of religion from the perspective of logic and definable concepts for nearly 50 years, and consider myself to have been successful at this project. I find considerable meaning in the ideas I’ve developed.

Certainly the ability of most people to reason effectively or to employ logic correctly is limited. The limitations of individuals does not negate the value of the process. For example, few people can throw a football 50 yards downfield into the hands of a guy running flat out, while being chased by large, fast guys intent on throwing him to the ground. Yet it can be done. There are few graduate physicists who could reproduce Einstein’s work from scratch. That does not negate his reasoning or his logic.

Finally, I suggest that when logic is perceived to not correspond with nature, this will be found the fault of the logician.

So, it’s very much on-topic to discuss Death and Life, since you’ve asked the question “Why”?

We are back on topic.

Your death will be a paradox to life – a contradiction. Trying to explain the universe while avoiding this obvious paradox will provide erroneous solutions - answers which do not conform to reality.

Webster’s definition of paradox: a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement that expresses a possible truth. I do not see the applicability of “paradox” to your statement. The word is clearly not synonymous with contradiction. For that matter, I do not see death as a contradiction to anything either. Biological death is a contrast to life, without which we’d not notice life, and is consistent with all physical processes. Even stars and galaxies die, and likely so will our universe.

This is a consequence of an implied principle of physics, that unless energy changes state or form, nothing happens.

Frederick Wilhemsen’s book: “The Paradoxical Nature of Reality” is a good one, even only just to reference the title.

If you’ve taken your comments from this book, I will probably find it full of neurolinguistic spin and not to my taste. I see nothing paradoxical about reality. I see plenty of confusion in human interpretations of reality, however. Confusion and paradox are not synonyms either. Thank you, nonetheless.

The reason we have poetry, art, music, drama and such things – the reason human beings have Beethoven and Shakespeare is because the world cannot be explained by science and physics alone.

I don’t “have” Beethoven or Shakespeare, but can access the music and stories these gifts to our planet have created, so know what you meant. (Beethoven is my favorite composer, but 16th century English is a barrier to my appreciation of Shakespeare, except for his plots.) I don’t find that art explains anything, although it certainly soothes the mind of at least one person seeking explanations. .

Christ deliberately taught using paradoxes in order to free people from the oppression of nature and the limits of logic. The very same teaching can be found in Zen and ecstatic religions.

I see no paradoxes in any of Christ’s parables. Their meaning is clear to me, though I disagree with some interpretations of them. I don’t see Zen stuff as paradoxical either, just the use of words to trick the mind. And I know nothing of ecstatic religions. Excellent examples of paradoxes can be found in those attributed to Xeno, which IMO are correctly interpreted as proving the impossibility of motion, at least in the sense we consider it.

God is about “transcendence”. The intelligence that created the universe is not bound by the universe. The intelligence that created the laws is not bound by the laws. To understand that Intelligence, one must be willing to accept that physical laws and natural processes are not eternal, necessary or absolute.

I understand but do not accept these principles. They are ideas about the nature of the Creator which were invented by men, subsequently declared by other men to have been revealed by God. These are the kinds of ideas which are guaranteed to keep science and religion forever swimming in separate ponds, and if that continues, religion’s pond will continue to evaporate.

Such ideas are unnecessary. .The only purpose they serve is to allow theologians to make up whatever they want to about the Creator, and so retain their grip upon intelligent but trusting and well programmed minds.

In summary, I have some understanding of where you come from, possibly thanks to a good Catholic lady friend. Also, I recall once believing as you do.

Normally I’d not invite someone like you to reconsider your fundamental thoughts, for I figure that beliefs in a Creator are generally a good thing. Ideas such as mine are intended as an alternative to scientific atheism. If you evaluate them from that perspective they might not be so objectionable to you.

 

[DavidHume]

One more flippant comment, then a serious question.
"greylorn:

but 16th century English is a barrier to my appreciation of Shakespeare

We agree. Any thoughts about potential purpose behind creation?

It is a Tale told by an Ideot / full of sound and fury / signifying nothing.

Serious questions: how would you distinguish a purpose that was imbued into creation by a creator, from a purpose that you had yourself inferred for creation? Is the former necessarily superior to the latter?

 

[reggieM]

Normally I’d not invite someone like you to reconsider your fundamental thoughts, for I figure that beliefs in a Creator are generally a good thing. Ideas such as mine are intended as an alternative to scientific atheism. If you evaluate them from that perspective they might not be so objectionable to you.

I understand and it does sound good to me.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Well, I’m sorry ReggieM,
But I think its obvious I wasn’t speaking of the universe but of this perfect God, Who hardly is coherent with the way this universe is.

Another point against this perfect God:
Why would He come to us, inbetween us, in the person of Jesus Christ, in stating his solidarity with us? Why would He have made the effort?
Because for a perfect God this is very strange behaviour. Because a perfect God doesn’t bother, is sublime in itself, is undisturbed by anything that is going on in its creation.
But we evidently meet in God empathy, involvement, attention. He cares.
And this I say just for a moment lifting my hat of science and putting on the cap of revelation - remember Sperry?

Last night I read a book by Pope John Paul II, bought in a secondhandshop for the price of one euro (!) But it completely swirled me into the Story. Its very interesting. Especially for the kind of sceptic pagan catholic I am.

So you see a bit how my mind works.

While the kind of questions I ask and doubts I express, that’s not just me who’s talking. I think its in the mind of thousands of semi-secular science-oriented catholics all over the world. Or at least in the very securalised culture I live in. In which a real or traditional catholic almost is a rare species.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

We agree. Any thoughts about potential purpose behind creation?

I think it has to do with the joy of invention, the fascination for making things, life, complexity, beauty. Something like that.

I see Vincent van Gogh. All the time not selling his art. All the time living on the edge. But seeing this Life in nature, in the world around him. Transforming it into magnificent art. Until his nervous-break-down. I think he for moments experienced why all this universe is there.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Another point against this perfect God:
Why would He come to us, inbetween us, in the person of Jesus Christ, in stating his solidarity with us? Why would He have made the effort?
Because for a perfect God this is very strange behaviour. Because a perfect God doesn’t bother, is sublime in itself, is undisturbed by anything that is going on in its creation.

That really means what you mean by a perfect God.

The Christians believe that love is a perfection of God, is perfect in God, is God, and is eternally true of God. According to that God, i see no problem.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

Some years ago I had a very long discussion with atheists and materialists, scientists and philosophers from christian origin. And lots of different arguments passed by, but in the end they came up with their real almost gutfeeling-like arguments. Of which one was the occurrence of a disease with which a child can be born and that is not curable, what means this child will die in horrible agony. And this made them impossible to believe in any God, while if God, especially a perfect God, it must be a criminal. And well, it didn’t give me a complete mindshift, but it certainly made me think.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Some years ago I had a very long discussion with atheists and materialists, scientists and philosophers from christian origin. And lots of different arguments passed by, but in the end they came up with their real almost gutfeeling-like arguments. Of which one was the occurrence of a disease with which a child can be born and that is not curable, what means this child will die in horrible agony. And this made them impossible to believe in any God, while if God, especially a perfect God, it must be a criminal. And well, it didn’t give me a complete mindshift, but it certainly made me think.

I can certainly relate to this problem. I was once an atheist to. One of the great barriers for me, which caused doubt in me for many years, was what appeared to me to be a great evil in the world; so unflinchingly hostile, that it made God seem uncaring–absent from existence. But they do not call Satan the great deceiver for nothing.

Theodicy

This is a question of Theodicy. The main problems with resolving this issue is to do with perspective, perception and overbearing emotions, when attempting to reason. Allot of people come to the discussion already believing that there is no possible response. For some people, the mere idea that God is still legitimately good, despite extreme personnel suffering, is absolutely offensive. Imagine being sexually assaulted by your father or mother, and a priest daring to tell you that God still loves you. You’re unlikely to be convinced. I come from a family with a history of abuse and neglect, so i know. The point is that “undisciplined raw emotions” can cloud judgment for either side of the debate. But please don’t think that I’m using this as an excuse to ignore suffering. I’m not trying to blame the victim. There is evidently great suffering that needs to somehow be accounted for if we wish to have a reasonable faith in a perfect God that respects the dignity of human beings. Some people don’t know how to believe, because they find it difficult to reconcile the two opposing natures; while some people find excuse in their suffering, and choose not to believe because they didn’t what to believe in the first place. Evil, for them, is simply a convenience when faced with the moral questions of belief. But for the people who see great value in the nature that is God, it is important for us to find good reasons to believe. And thats why i have chosen to believe in God despite the problem of evil; firstly because i see no necessary contradiction. And secondly because i believe that there are at least some “good ideas” that would suggest the “justified permission of evil”.

When Judging evil

Some people judge evil merely according to pain or what looks horrible; so for them there can be no reconciliation; because their standard for measuring right and wrong, and their understanding of evil, is different.

To me, something is evil depending on the end to which its directed. If something doesn’t lead to the “greatest good”, then it is evil. Therefore, in principle, if reality is good in itself, then no degree of suffering can be a barrier to the existence of people, since existence is good and peoples existence in heaven is the greatest good. The only way Gods existence can be brought in to question in regards to suffering or moral evil, would be the “unnecessary” presence of evil. If evil is unnecessary, if it could have been principally avoided, if we could have be reconciled to God with out suffering and pain and the potential for hell, then this would be an insurmountable problem for anyone who believes in a perfect being, and i would have to agree with the nihilist that God is not perfect and does not exist. However, anybody who is honest about knowledge, would know that it is impossible to know from our perspective of fallibility that God does not have good reasons for allowing suffering, even if they suspect that God doesn’t have good reasons . And even if a theist finds it difficult to formulate a logical arguement that supports Gods perfection, ones still has the legitimacy of faith and hope in so far as there being no necessary contradiction between Gods perfection and the presence of evil. And there are philosophers, who are not “Theists”, that would and do agree with this position. One philosopher in particular who debated William lane Craig is in support of this if I’m not mistaken. But I can’t remember his name; I’m not good with names; I apologize. I will have to get back to you on that.

This arguement supports faith in God in so far as it is based on the grounds that we have insufficient knowledge for judging Gods actions.

This isn’t a positive proof of God goodness; but this arguement at leasts saves the dignity of faith for those who want it.

There are other arguments, but i will have to get back to you on that.

Thanks for reading.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for an excellent reply, Benedict.

Another point against this perfect God:
Why would He come to us, inbetween us, in the person of Jesus Christ, in stating his solidarity with us? Why would He have made the effort?
Because for a perfect God this is very strange behaviour. Because a perfect God doesn’t bother, is sublime in itself, is undisturbed by anything that is going on in its creation.
But we evidently meet in God empathy, involvement, attention. He cares.
And this I say just for a moment lifting my hat of science and putting on the cap of revelation - remember Sperry?

Yes, I think you have the answer. Catholicism is a religion of the heart and mind – not just of rationalism. So your example of Van Gogh was a good one. How could God have creatures truly understand Him and know what love is and what desire for the Good is? Well, it required building some freedom into the design – the ability for a creature to “possess himself” and then “give himself” – those things cannot come from physical laws or mutations. The human consciousness is capable of possessing the infinite – we have that much “space” inside of us.
“In the fullness of time …” so, after some time human beings were ready for the incarnation. It’s a good way to say it – “why would He have made the effort?” – because it was an “effort”, a struggle. The saints teach us a lot – it’s all about desire. It’s the focus of our lives to the goal – and the goal is fulfillment and unity in the Good.
So, when we talk about “perfection” of God, it cannot be the sterile or static perfection of mathematics alone. That is a type of perfection, but by analogy we can see, as human beings, that a perfection that excludes human life is limited (and not perfect) – and human life is marked with empathy, love, creativity, involvement, learning and communion.

I like your insights and learning about your background. Finding a real or traditional Catholic in the Netherlands is a very rare thing to do – although I have some friends in Delft who are of that rare species. I think Fr. Van Der Ploeg, O.P. was one of the last great Dutch priests of the recent era (there are others now, not as well known – but hard to find). I also thank St. Andreas Wouters for rescuing my soul one day … but all of that is a different topic.

I agree that there are thousands who are struggling in our secularized culture – your questions and explorations are very good.

 

[greylorn]

One more flippant comment, then a serious question.

It is a Tale told by an Ideot / full of sound and fury / signifying nothing.

Serious questions: how would you distinguish a purpose that was imbued into creation by a creator, from a purpose that you had yourself inferred for creation? Is the former necessarily superior to the latter?

I would invent a variety of potential purposes, some which appear to me conservative and sensible, others as outrageous as possible, borrowing freely from religious and SciFi lore. (I’ve already done this, of course.) I would invite others to do the same. The only criterion is that each creation story is credible, not to the faithful who already believe something else and do not need another, but to atheists temporarily willing to suspend their disbelief in a creator.

I would be particular about my choice of atheists because I would want those capable of making reasonable storyline distinctions. I would seek atheists who enjoyed movies and stories, figuring them to have some practice as discerning good plots from bad, and well structured writing from drivel.

I’d want someone who recognized that “From Russia with Love” was the weakest James Bond book and the best Bond movie— someone who admits that Terminator III, Men in Black II, and the last three Stars Wars movies pretty much stunk. Etc. Professional critics would be excluded automatically. It would also be good to find someone who cried upon watching The Joy Luck Club and Shakespeare in Love, who laughed at Bored of the Rings, who earns his own living, and who has killed, gutted, and cooked his own food in the wild.

When this panel of experts has selected the best possible creation stories I would finally submit them to you, and discard those which you liked.

 

[Dameedna]

I’m not happy, and you needn’t bail just yet. It’s a tough set of questions.

You’ve replied with questions more so than answers, but your questions are germane. They appear to be distillable into a general sort of complaint to the effect that we either cannot answer such questions, or that the answers are irrelevant. You could be right, but if so, you’ve taken the fun out of thinking.

Not the case at all. The problem is, the questions themselves already imply something. They aren’t blanket questions and are nowhere near as imaginative as the big questions could be. Hence they lack integrity and sincerity of what I think the OP was actually trying to get at.

Not all people lack imagination. Some have it. Saddled with real information and bridled with logic, imagination has proven an effective tool for discovery. Perhaps when you said that, “People lack imagination,” you were referring to those with whom you associate.

Rude.

Perhaps it is just as well that you bail out on these questions after all.

Perhaps you can address what I’ve said, instead of patrionizing? hmm?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The perfect God is hardly coherent with this 13.7 billion years of gradual growth in complexity.

what makes you think that? is there a more perfect way?

not knowing the parameters involved makes it pretty hard to make an objective assertion like this.

The perfect God also hardly is coherent with the slaughter that went on during T-Rex for instance.

dinosaurs?

The perfect God hardly is coherent with the Shoa, the Holocaust.

why not? G-d didn’t do those things, men did.

To me this whole universe is proof of something massive creative behind it. But don’t tell me its perfect. Its not. Its trying, searching, inventing.

i can see how one may feel that way. it looks that way from this perspective, unfortunately, it assumes that we have a perspective truly indicative of G-ds actions, goals desire, etc.

you cant see anything about the world from the bottom of a well, extrapolating data then based on the patch of blue sky you can see is untrustworthy.

And this is what comes forth, when science is taken into account.

science does not, and cannot speak to theological principal.

 

[DavidHume]

…
When this panel of experts has selected the best possible creation stories I would finally submit them to you, and discard those which you liked.

But that elaborate scheme doesn’t help to distinguish the creator’s purpose of the universe from purposes that people have invented. Though I am flattered that you gave me the final word on the whole affair.