Debate: How God Can Create Something From Nothing - (A Response To GreyLorn)

[MindOverMatter2]

In order to buy into your way of looking at reality, you have to assume the correctness of certain philosophical principles(such as : A being that has the power to create natures is not subject to the principles of physical reality, since the principles of physical reality are not absolute beings; they are the stuff of creative potentiality)that cannot be explained in any concrete way. They are concepts that don’t really clarify anything actual. Just in that one sentence above: what are natures, in any real sense? Why are principles of physical reality not “absolute beings”? What are “absolute beings” in the context of real life? How do those terms relate to our understanding of reality? .

Just in case you missed this post i have re-posted it here, as i think that it gives explanation to some of the points you have raised.

If you read the first 3 posts of this thread, you should see that what i am in fact doing is explaining the metaphysics of being. I do not make an argument for the existence of God, but rather i explain what is necessary in order for God to have the capacity to create out of nothing. I was attempting to make Gods actions intelligible. To that effect I made it clear that i was talking about God, and i also made it clear that there is a fundamental difference between that which is potentially real, that which is real by participation in the real, and that which is real by “nature”. That which is real by nature is reality, and necessarily so, just like a circle is a circle by virtue of it having the shape or the properties of a circle. That which is existence by nature, exists by its nature.

Firstly, any physical thing which exists, has two things relevant to its being. Firstly, it has reality and thus act; it has esse. Secondly it has an essence, which is by another word its nature, its “way” of being, its properties and any act peculiar to its nature. The physical universe is a participatory nature. This means simply that it doesn’t exist by virtue of its nature; it is not “reality” (esse) by nature, but merely participates in, and is actualized by, a reality that already exists and is eternal, and it is eternal because its nature is “esse”. Physical reality cannot create that which is logically and existentially necessary. This means that any being which potentially exists, exists not because they are real, but because of something else that is making it real. A potential being is given reality; it receives it. If a being exists necessarily, it is because its “essence” and its “esse”, are the same thing; and that is to say that it does not receive reality, because it is reality.

Again; Physics, potentially real beings, cannot be the ultimate cause of existence. They cannot come out of nothing, or be the ultimate cause of the potentiality that it requires in order to exist; every physical act is receiving potentiality and reality (esse), and thus none of them are the ultimate logical cause or efficient reason of potentiality or reality; and the same is true for energy. Out of nothing comes nothing. If the physical universe was existence by nature (esse), it would simply exist in its entirety from all eternity. It would not have any potentiality or change in it, since its being would be intrinsic to reality and thus physical beings would be logically necessary and timeless by virtue of that necessity. But logic and experience tells us otherwise. Also, the physical universe proceeds into reality; not into an existential nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing; thus there has to be a fundamental nature that is existence in which physical beings proceed into. This nature is called the “real”, or reality. We also know this nature by the term existence. That which is “existence” by nature, exists because its nature is fundamentally “existence”, like a circle is a circle by virtue of its nature which is in fact a circle. God does not participate in existence; but rather God’s nature is “existence”. God is reality.

When talking about reality it is necessary to make further distinctions, simply because there is such a thing as “potentiality”; potential beings. Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus a potential being does not and cannot possibly exist of its own accord, since it is either recieving its potentiality from a medium that has also recieved reality, or it has come directly from an original reality. A potential being has to be grounded in a being that exists by neccesity and has a nature as such that a potential reality could proceed from its eternal act. When i say that God is real, i am not and cannot possibly mean it in the same sense that a physical thing is real, although the two have a similarity in the sense that both natures exist. The difference is, when i say that a physical thing is real, it is real because, in the first place, there is already such a thing as “reality” as a distinct and transcendent nature that exists wholly independent of physical things and potential beings in terms of why it exists and what it is fundamentally; and it exists entirely because of itself and not because of any precedent or potential fact. Since the physical universe is not existence by nature, but rather is a series of potential states, finite or infinite, physics does not exist by logical necessity of its nature like God, since potential states do not contain within them the necessary nature that is “reality”. Rather, they participate in reality; they come into reality. They share in the nature of the real. God is the only being that is reality by nature.

I understand that this can be a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but it follows necessarily from the fact of Gods nature as existence, and it is also necessary in order to understand how God creates from nothing.

.

 

[HelenaMT]

The only thing it means is i don’t have a theistic belief. Nothing more. That is what i mean, when i don’t like it because is not very descriptive.

You also have to look at the flip side of the coin with your non-football fans. The reason they are not speaking out against football is because football fans don’t tell them that if they don’t like football they are going to burn for eternity, and they are not trying to get evolution taken out of school and replace with the theory of intelligent football. So we must both admit it a two way street.

I would never deny it is a two way street, as long as we both acknowlege both sides have well earned many current sterotypes. It would be great if society treated us only in terms of how we would like to define ourselves, but that will never happen.

As for design in the universe. I am open to all ideas, however i will not accept something until it has verifiable evidence to support it. Until that point i simply withhold my belief.

That sounds perfectly rational.

 

[Nan_S]

The attributes of the Creator were assigned to Him by highly ignorant men. Might not the laws of physics point us in a different direction?

Suppose that all of us were to wake up one morning with our beliefs eradicated, but our knowledge intact? I propose that we would soon find the need to believe in a Creator, or Extremely Intelligent Engineer, as cause of this universe. Would we not then think about the properties and characteristics of this Creator in terms of knowledge (physics) and come to a different conclusion than those dictated by traditional beliefs?

I was thinking about something today, regarding the idea of trying to define God anew in terms of modern physics.

The Big 3 characteristics that we use to describe God, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, might be discernable through physics. If we recognize that an incredibly complex universe exists, and decide it must be a created universe, it’s not too much of a stretch to say there is a master planner (omniscient), who executes the plan (omnipotent), and fine-tunes it in every detail great and small (omnipresent).

So far, so good. But while physics can help us discern what this being we call God did and does, it does not reveal much about His motive, intent or purpose. Physics reveals little, if anything, that helps us determine whether God is benevolent, malevolent, or completely indifferent towards His creation. A god which satisfies the Big 3 - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent - could be kindly nudging us all towards perfection and excellence (Lawful Good alignment), or he might just as likely be setting “gotcha” traps and treating us like a cruel kid which squishes every 4th ant walking across the sidewalk (Chaotic Evil alignment), or he might simply be like the scientist who sets up an experiment and dispassionately watches it to see if something interesting will happen (Neutral alignment).

So, even if physics helps me to recognize the existence of a creator-god, how am I to tell what kind of god this is? How do you use physics to define Truth, or Love, or Trustworthiness? It wasn’t possible for science 4,000 years ago to determine whether God was benevolent, malevolent, or indifferent, and it’s still not possible today. If anything, looking at the violence humans and animals inflict upon each other, and peering through telescopes to see galaxies collide and stars explode, we might be more likely to decide that if a god exists he either doesn’t care or enjoys destruction.

When we discuss the One God of Christianity theologically, we claim that we have a merciful and just God who has revealed Himself to us, provided us with His intent, acted consistently with what He has revealed, and shown us by example how to live in a way that will bring the most benefit to everyone. We talk about a God who embodies perfection in every ideal way, and invites us to choose His way for ourselves.

I’m going to disagree with you when you say “the attributes of the Creator were assigned to Him by highly ignorant men.” Quite the opposite. The attributes of the Creator were revealed to us by God Himself.

I might wake up one morning with my beliefs eradicated, but if my knowledge is still intact I would still be aware of what God has revealed.

 

[HelenaMT]

…But while physics can help us discern what this being we call God did and does, it does not reveal much about His motive, intent or purpose. Physics reveals little, if anything, that helps us determine whether God is benevolent, malevolent, or completely indifferent towards His creation. A god which satisfies the Big 3 - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent - could be kindly nudging us all towards perfection and excellence (Lawful Good alignment), or he might just as likely be setting “gotcha” traps and treating us like a cruel kid which squishes every 4th ant walking across the sidewalk (Chaotic Evil alignment), or he might simply be like the scientist who sets up an experiment and dispassionately watches it to see if something interesting will happen (Neutral alignment).

That’s kind of the point-we CAN’T really know for certain if He’s Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil , or Neutral (I appreciate the D&D reference, BTW). We can rely on revelation, but in the end, that is just trusting the words of those who claim to have received revelation. Not that I’m criticizing those who believe it, but if God is truly who He has been revealed to be, shouldn’t we eventually see evidence of that nature somewhere in physical reality,which is His creation? If we were to find such evidence, and it contradicted what we thought had been revealed, would we take revelation over evidence?

So, even if physics helps me to recognize the existence of a creator-god, how am I to tell what kind of god this is? How do you use physics to define Truth, or Love, or Trustworthiness? It wasn’t possible for science 4,000 years ago to determine whether God was benevolent, malevolent, or indifferent, and it’s still not possible today. If anything, looking at the violence humans and animals inflict upon each other, and peering through telescopes to see galaxies collide and stars explode, we might be more likely to decide that if a god exists he either doesn’t care or enjoys destruction.

And that’s one of the biggest problems people face when they try to reconcile what the Church teaches about God with what is actually revealed to us in our own experience. You can’t use physics to define truth, love, or trustworthiness, but when we look at God’s creation, wouldn’t we see the results of such traits were they absolutely true? When a mother has a child, we can’t measure her feeling of love, but the results of her love are apparent-in the fact that her child grows up experiencing the evidence of that love-being fed and cared for and assisted in his struggles. Given the number of people who suffer, whether they are faithful or not, innocent or guilty, young or old, atheist or theist, it is easy for skeptics to conclude that God is not merciful or consistent.

Keep in mind, I am sort of playing devil’s advocate here- I have a lot of trouble intellectually accepting that a merciful, omnipotent,and omniscient God would produce the results we see, but I do believe in God.

I’m going to disagree with you when you say “the attributes of the Creator were assigned to Him by highly ignorant men.” Quite the opposite. The attributes of the Creator were revealed to us by God Himself.

I know this was directed at Greylorn, but I kind of agree that we get a lot of our information about God’s attributes from medieval philosophers and the early church fathers. I wouldn’t call them highly ignorant by the standards of their times, but they are not God, and we do have to take it on pure faith that they were divinely guided and not simply gifted apologists. Their opinions of God’s attributes are not as easy for me to have confidence in as, say, the words Jesus spoke of the Father.

I might wake up one morning with my beliefs eradicated, but if my knowledge is still intact I would still be aware of what God has revealed.

What of your beliefs are actually knowledge, though? Which of your beliefs are based on evidence rather than faith?

 

[greylorn]

Don’t worry my friend i have a full understanding of the method, and am educated beyond degree level in science. So you can just present “the evidence of brilliant engineering and beautiful design”. Then we can go from there.

Also if you are a scientist would should understand why i defined my position, if you do not understand then you are clearly not a scientist.

Excellent. Then, consider "the evidence of brilliant engineering and beautiful (except for wart hogs) design presented. Also, kindly consider my notes about probabilities. Perhaps, calculate your own.

Given your level of education, you’ll want to inform yourself by reading Michael Behe’s books, Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, in that order. I believe that his ideas will give you another perspective. Unlike me, he is fully credentialed, and his arguments are strictly scientific. For those unfamiliar with the science of microbiology (as I was) his book educates while it makes his points. Clearly and lucidly. Please let me know what you think when you’ve finished.

Finally, Albert, I am not a scientist. I just have a basic education in physics, which I’ve tried to keep current with ongoing reading and personal theoretical research. Along the way I’ve been required to learn engineering, biochemistry, neurology, astronomy, and have voluntarily delved into any subject I found to be remotely relevant to what I consider the most important question man can answer: why does the conscious human mind exist?

I would call myself a philosopher, if anyone else would, but with only one post-grad philosophy course in my resume (just enough to convince me that modern philosophers are too ignorant about physics to even get that they can’t figure out anything about the universe without knowing physics first), I don’t deserve the title. (Although Douglas Hofstadter did include a chapter of mine in his philosophy book, “The Mind’s I.” Does that count for anything?

Anyhow, I invite you to learn a bit more about this subject and am looking forward to more conversation when you’ve done so.

 

[greylorn]

…Hopefully we got over that through your query and my clarification. I will admit to making a spelling error, though.

That is a start.

It’s true that my little brain’s post-graduate education was in a field other than physics. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have gone that way if my life circumstances had been different, nor does it mean I’m incapable of understanding physics.

Actually, it may. Our minds tend to find paths to which they are best suited, and avoid those which they are ill-equipped to tread. Especially true of bright people. My oldest daughter, for example, tried physics, but broke into tears over difficult problems. Later she excelled in Russian and is now a practicing psychic. In the course of my career I’ve encountered several Ph.d physicists who do not understand physics. It seems to me simplest to excel at the things we are naturally inclined towards, and avoid the wanna-be’s and could have’s. And in your spare time, you might want to get a copy of Richard Feynman’s basic physics books and see how you feel about the subject. He is a superb teacher.

One of the characteristics of God is that He is greater than everything. That’s a theological definition and an absolute statement, obviously; there’s no getting around that. It seems science hates absolute statements, but infinite regression is an unsatisfactory answer to the old question, “Where did it all come from in the first place?”

This “characteristic of God” is an invention of man.

“Unsatisfactory answer” is a much more generous approach to infinite regression arguments than any description I would give.

The follow-on to that absolute is that if God is greater than everything, it is nonsensical to hypothesize that God could make something greater than Himself. I do not follow your logical reasoning on this. What you’re suggesting is akin to the old crazy-maker question: “If God can do anything, can He make a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift?”

However, if the man-invented characteristic of God does not actually apply, your argument is not relevant.

As to your statement regarding the Laws of Thermodynamics implying that God did not create the matter He used to form the universe, my counter to that is state that when God created the universe He also created both the Laws of Thermodynamics and the matter needed to create the universe.

Theologically, to state that God did not create the stuff from which the universe was made, that He only used pre-existent matter to create the universe, we would be elevating matter (however inert) to a position equal or superior to God. We would be stating that there is something which God is not greater than; we would in fact be elevating matter to a god-status in its own right.

Alas, you’ve made an assumption about the Laws of Thermodynamics which also does not apply, at least not to my way of thinking about them. The universe is made of energy. Matter is but one one form of energy. The 1st law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I have no problem with God using it to manufacture matter, because doing so does not violate thermodynamics.

If energy and God both existed prior to universe creation, you should have no problem worrying about who’s on top.

Are you saying men can’t fly using the skin they are born in, or men can’t pilot moon rockets and stealth bombers? Because if it’s the latter, I’ll disagree. I’ve logged more than enough flying hours over a couple of decades to feel qualified making that statement.

The aircraft which you and I have flown are designed to be aerodynamically stable. Stealth bombers and fighters are not, and can only be “flown” with the aid of a computer system. The best the pilot can do by way of flying is tell the computer where he wants to go, and how fast. Should the computers all crash, so will the aircraft, despite the pilot’s best efforts.

Moving on, what men have done in creating moon rockets and stealth bombers is simply find new ways to organize pre-existent matter into useful objects. Nothing extraordinary in that. What makes God extraordinary (theology again) is that God did not need nor use pre-existent matter.

I find it curious that people who figure out that I’m proposing a less-than-omnipotent creator seem to imagine that I do not find His creation an extraordinary accomplishment.

Think about it. An omnipotent God can create the whole shebang in a single act of will. He could create a billion universes just as easily, for that’s what omnipotence is all about. But a Creator who had to think about how to construct a universe, then actually do it---- now that, to me is far more impressive.

I think I’m going to enjoy this. You push, I’ll turn the wheel, and together we’ll get the truck back on the road.

I have to admit, that was good! Cracked me up, first read. Scores lots of points as well, since good-humored and quick-witted women do not abound. (Yes, I’m an MCP.) But let’s do a bit of analysis. Where I left the analogy, the turnip truck was toiling uphill, with me behind pushing and you up top holding down the turnips. Thus we may reasonably assume that it was still on a road, and that a driver was already behind the wheel.

Then you co-opt my analogy. You are behind the wheel, and the truck is suddenly in the ditch. Yet all I asked for was a lightening of the load, and a little uphill assist. I’m thinking that with you steering, I’m going to save a few turnips and get as far away from that truck as possible.

(This is getting reminiscent of the famous internet “College Theme Paper, He vs. She.” Do not Google this, Eve!).

 

[greylorn]

For the record, I hold the “day is an age” viewpoint of Genesis. The entire six “days” of creation as described by Genesis fairly closely follows the evolution of the earth if you were looking at it from the surface of the earth. For instance, we now know that the stars existed before the planets were formed, even though Genesis says the opposite, but if you had been standing on the surface of the earth when primordial volcanic clouds dissipated it would look like the stars came later.

Reply 1 of 2.

Years ago when I was as devout a Catholic as you I tried my version of that argument on a group of astronomers, over beer and a sausage pizza I couldn’t eat on Good Friday. They could barely keep a straight face amid my explanation, and their subsequent laughter was more heartfelt, from sympathy for me, than derisive.

The history of all idea systems shows that as their explanations become more complex and contrived, as is this one, they deny the value of their root beliefs. This has always proven true in physics.

The astronomers said, in effect— If God was telling us the truth when He wrote the Bible, why didn’t he tell it straight up? That would not have been impossible, still keeping it simple. It might have gone thusly:

In the beginning, ages ago, God made the stars in the heavens. Many ages later, when it was time, he made the earth and the planets to move about one of these stars in a place distant from the place of the beginning. Thus, He made light. In time He saw that the earth and planets needed companions, and so created our moon, and smaller moons for the planets.

After another long passage of time, God filled the oceans with small creatures, and later to large and fearsome fish. He made the trees and plants, and beasts of the earth, beginning with the smallest, then, as these be perfected, to the largest, all to feed upon the plants and one another in perfect balance.

Again, after myriad kinds of beast had come and gone, and when it was time, God created man. Man struggled on the earth, learning and becoming wiser than the beasts, until when man was ready, God imbued within him an immortal soul to become one with the body and grow into understanding.

There are many things so-called dark ages people accomplished with their stone knives and bearskins that would still be beyond us if we didn’t have our marvelous modern machines and cutting-edge scientific knowledge. How may pyramids have you built lately? Could you re-create stonehenge perfectly aligned with the stars and sun using only crude ancient measuring devices?

Furthermore, it does not follow that lack of modern scientific knowledge implies people also lacked wisdom or discernment in other areas. You’re engaging in another logical fallacy here, connecting two things which are actually unrelated.

By “Dark Ages” I was referring to the roughly 600 year period between 500 and 1100 in Europe during which thought and the pursuit of knowledge was stifled, allegedly by the religious power of that time. I thought that this was a fairly common use of the term.

Of course I can’t build the great pyramids, and doubt that the Egyptians did either. There are too many unresolved questions to make that an acceptable theory. e.g. about a million massive blocks in the Great Pyramid which took 30 years to build. Do the math needed to calculate how many blocks per minute were set in place. I could not set blocks that fast with a super-crane.

Stonehenge is more do-able. Give a bunch of tough old boys enough beer, good meat, and incentive, they’ll get it done. The incentive remains the mystery.

Note that it was neither the accomplished Egyptian pyramid builders nor the Stonehenge Druids who invented the beliefs you now cherish. It was the Hebrews, generally poor builders, worshipers who hedged their bets by hanging onto several Gods, noted for murdering existing civilizations in their territorial conquests but not much good at hanging onto their territory, founders of a belief system which doesn’t even get a wedge on the pie chart of worldwide belief systems.

 

[greylorn]

Reply 2 of 2 to post 58.

That’s where the idea of Revealed Truth comes into play. It started with Abram/Abraham and his kin when God revealed Himself. There are things we can not figure out on our own, but we can grasp enough to understand them at least in part if they are revealed to us.

I’ve heard the Deluded Crowds hypothesis before from a literal-minded fundamentalist. He went a little further, though. He said that God made the earth look 4.5 billion years old, and then gave us His word saying the earth was actually 6,000 years old, to test us because He knew that only a few would be willing to trust God’s word over the evidence of human senses.

The problem with the Deluded Crowds theory - those gullible soap-opera refugee worshippers - is that (theology again) God is All Truth, Completely Consistent, and Completely Trustworthy. That’s another basic characteristic of God. A God who is Truth personified does not deal in lies and use deception to trip us up and test our mettle. If we believed that God was a liar in some ways, such as creating an earth with the appearance of extremely ancient origin when it was really only 6,000 years old, how could we trust Him to be true in anything else? We couldn’t.

We sure couldn’t. and I chose not to. There are so many contradictions between the Biblical versions of things and even common sense reality that I could not accept the traditional God concept---- which actually is not all that traditional, being invented by church philosophers Augustine and Aquinas, flat earth believers both.

But I did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I believe in a Creator, but define Him in a manner which is consistent with the laws of physics and the characteristics of human beings.

No, I disagree that God is looking for a few non-conformists willing to turn their backs on either conventional religious thought (as you suggest) or scientific evidence (as the fundamentalist suggested). But God is looking for non-conformists; He’s looking for people willing to Love as He Loves us, who set aside their personal self-interest and work for the betterment of the human community.

Nowhere in the Bible do I get that we are supposed to be altruists or communists. Quite the contrary. The Jews were already teaching that when Christ came along And, what we “know” about Christ is that he was a man, born of woman and dead of a mortal stabbing.

Do remember that the revealed truth by which you set your life’s compass consists of the words of men. Muslims follow other R.T’s, as do Mormons.

When I am standing up to account for myself at the end of my tenure here in this life, I want to be able to say I did the best I could embracing that ideal.

I once believed as you do. I gradually realized that if I was to make full use of my mind in the understanding of God’s purpose, a study of everything He had made available which might be pertinent to the question was in order. That necessarily included other belief systems, and certainly included the natural universe.

Before you get all prepped to share with God how you memorized every word of the Bible, blowing off inconsistencies in its interpretation of reality and God’s own nature, you might want to check out Matthew 25:14-30 with particular attention to vs. 26-30.

 

[AlbertBall]

Excellent. Then, consider "the evidence of brilliant engineering and beautiful (except for wart hogs) design presented. Also, kindly consider my notes about probabilities. Perhaps, calculate your own.

Given your level of education, you’ll want to inform yourself by reading Michael Behe’s books, Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, in that order. I believe that his ideas will give you another perspective. Unlike me, he is fully credentialed, and his arguments are strictly scientific. For those unfamiliar with the science of microbiology (as I was) his book educates while it makes his points. Clearly and lucidly. Please let me know what you think when you’ve finished.

Finally, Albert, I am not a scientist. I just have a basic education in physics, which I’ve tried to keep current with ongoing reading and personal theoretical research. Along the way I’ve been required to learn engineering, biochemistry, neurology, astronomy, and have voluntarily delved into any subject I found to be remotely relevant to what I consider the most important question man can answer: why does the conscious human mind exist?

I would call myself a philosopher, if anyone else would, but with only one post-grad philosophy course in my resume (just enough to convince me that modern philosophers are too ignorant about physics to even get that they can’t figure out anything about the universe without knowing physics first), I don’t deserve the title. (Although Douglas Hofstadter did include a chapter of mine in his philosophy book, “The Mind’s I.” Does that count for anything?

Anyhow, I invite you to learn a bit more about this subject and am looking forward to more conversation when you’ve done so.

I am fully aware of Michael Behe, the Discovery Institute, and irreducible complexity. To say they have been debunked countless times would be an understatement. I would suggest you learn you science from Peer Reviewed sources, not from fringe scientists with an agenda. You have basically said the equivalent of, ‘i am learning chemistry in my own spare time, are you aware of Zosimus’ then asked me to ‘learn a bit more about this subject’. So no i do not want to read Behe’s book, for given that it has already been throughly debunked, and i have a limited time on this earth, i will choose to do something more productive with my time and leave the junk science to those that do not understand the method. The reason you see ‘design’ is because you lack an understanding of evolution, no doubt because you have been learning your ‘science’ from the discovery institute. (however banned subject so we can not discuss).

Therefore, I invite you to learn a bit more about this subject and am looking forward to more conversation when you’ve done so.

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That sounds perfectly rational.

You agree that it is perfectly rational not to believe in anything without Empirical proof?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The first of these laws says, among other things, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It offers no qualifications, such as, “…except by God.”

Supernatural entities, including their powers and the implications they pose for physical statements, is not considered when looking for empirical evidence or identifying a things empirical nature. And for good reason.
The supernatural order is not physical in the strict sense of empiricism. Science is designed to study only the natural order; staying true to the methodical principle that governs its mode of investigation. And this mode of investigation is employed in-order to prevent investigators from making false inferences to the supernatural, allowing us to give a truly unbiased investigation of the natural order, thus gaining important knowledge that would have otherwise been lost to us if super-naturalism had reigned dogmatically.
(When people no-longer employed the God hypothesis in scientific investigations, this allowed both kinds of knowledge to function according to their respectful roles and thus thrive within their proper context). Therefore the kinds of statements that scientists make – in-order for them to be meaningful statements in respect of the empirical method – can only be in reference to the capacities, restrictions and powers of physical reality and not necessarily to the abilities of a transcendent super-nature, since this is not the object of science. Science is not a study of the supernatural. God cannot be measured or tested. Thus the statement that there is nothing that can destroy energy, is not itself an absolute statement about the fundamental nature of metaphysical reality. Rather, it is a relative statement that is true only within the context of physical reality. It is true that energy is indestructible, but only given the methodical assumption that there is nothing greater then the laws of physical reality. Its truth is relative. You have to assume that physical reality is the only reality that their is, and that it is not the eternal manifestation of Gods transcendent mind and will.

To explain it a bit more fully; the honest scientist is not making a logically positive statement about being as being as a meta-physician would, but rather he or she is merely making a statement based upon, and relative to, the principle of methodical naturalism"; which is to pretend for the duration of the experiment, or when constructing a hypothesis, that there is no such thing as supernatural acts. In terms of “method” (as opposed to philosophical belief), all scientists (atheist and theists) are acting as materialist naturalists (they assume atheism as a principle of investigation rather then “belief”). Quite simply, the supernatural is not an object of scientific investigation. It is an object of theology and philosophy. Given this fact, there is no basis to think that a things empirical indestructibility is relevant and true at all levels of being. Thus, since the scientist is not doing metaphysics, he or she is certainly not saying with any honesty that there is absolutely nothing in reality that can cause energy to begin or cease. The scientists “statement”, in so far as it is a “scientific statement”, is in fact saying that “relative” to physical reality – being the entirety of existence – there is nothing that can destroy energy. Beyond that, that have no epistemological evidence to determine that energy cannot be created or destroyed by a transcendent all-powerful mind of some sort. The greatest error in the philosophy of science today is that it has forgotten its epistemological limitations, its metaphysical foundation, and its place in explaining phenomena. The authority of science has been blown out of proportion.

God on the other hand, can certainly will that a thing be indestructible so long as its indestructibility and existence is reliant upon Gods will to have such a nature. It needn’t be the case that energy is indestructible and eternal merely because of its self. That is an assumption that you have made because you have bought in to the propaganda that science is making absolute metaphysical statements about reality. This is false.

An atheist would use this as an argument against the belief in God.

Only somebody who doesn’t know what they are talking about would use such an argument.

…a bunch of well-intentioned sheepherders whose knowledge of physics featured laws like, “Stay upwind of the flock,”

Personally i qeustion your understanding of science in general.

The attributes of the Creator were assigned to Him by highly ignorant men.

Being ignorant in one respect, does not mean that they were ignorant in so far as Gods attributes were concerned.

Might not the laws of physics point us in a different direction?

The laws of physics points to a transcendent mind from which the laws of physics were born. Ask “Anthony flew”.

Would we not then think about the properties and characteristics of this Creator in terms of knowledge (physics) and come to a different conclusion than those dictated by traditional beliefs?

That’s only if we have a fundamental misunderstanding about the explanatory role of science.

 

[AlbertBall]

You agree that it is perfectly rational not to believe in anything without Empirical proof?

I didn’t say “anything”.

 

[HelenaMT]

You agree that it is perfectly rational not to believe in anything without Empirical proof?

There is nothing inherently irrational about withholding belief in something that can’t make sense to you. If an individual has not had any personal experience with anything divine or “supernatural”, and all he has to go on is what objective evidence he finds from others, there is no reason why he should automatically favor belief over non-belief. It is rational to believe in a creator if you have found reasons to support your belief, and it is equally rational for you to not believe if you have not. If rationality were only on one side, there wouldn’t be these endless debates about it.

IMO, irrationality only applies when a person reaches his conclusion based more on his emotion than information.

 

[greylorn]

I am fully aware of Michael Behe, the Discovery Institute, and irreducible complexity. To say they have been debunked countless times would be an understatement. I would suggest you learn you science from Peer Reviewed sources, not from fringe scientists with an agenda. You have basically said the equivalent of, ‘i am learning chemistry in my own spare time, are you aware of Zosimus’ then asked me to ‘learn a bit more about this subject’. So no i do not want to read Behe’s book, for given that it has already been throughly debunked, and i have a limited time on this earth, i will choose to do something more productive with my time and leave the junk science to those that do not understand the method. The reason you see ‘design’ is because you lack an understanding of evolution, no doubt because you have been learning your ‘science’ from the discovery institute. (however banned subject so we can not discuss).

Therefore, I invite you to learn a bit more about this subject and am looking forward to more conversation when you’ve done so.

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Actually, I learned about evolution by reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Descent of Man
and following up with smatterings from neo-Darwinist writers. I’ve watched the Creationist movement morph into Intelligent Design. Of course I’ve read some I.D. material. Unlike those who prefer to let others do what passes in them for thinking, I prefer to read original source material and form my own evaluations of its worth. Only after reading source material is it useful to read either approbations or criticisms of it, except for those who prefer ignorance. You would be surprised at how effective biased critics can be at taking arguments out of their original context, or not even understanding the full scope of the original argument. ----I take that back. You would not be surprised.

It is pretty clear to anyone who actually discriminates good ideas from bad ones, that the ID movement represents tweedle-dum, and Darwinists represent tweedle-dee. Or perhaps I’ve gotten that backwards.

Neither side has come up with an adequate explanation for the origin and ongoing evolution of biological life.

One reason I like Behe is because he is upfront about his beliefs (Catholic) but does not insert them into his work. He is not a proponent of I.D., although members of that movement have tried to co-opt him. He does an effective job of showing, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, that Darwinist theory does not explain the evolution of biological life. Edge of Evolution does a more effective job of this than …Black Box because it tackles more complex scientific information.

You are correct that Behe’s ideas have been debunked many times (“countless” seems an unwarranted exaggeration). I’ve read some of these, and watched the PBS putdown. However, they have been debunked by countless (because I don’t want to count) pinheads. I mention this because, since you’ve only read the debunkings, you wouldn’t know.

Unlike I.D. proponents, Behe does not propose any answers to the conundrum. (And he has rejected mine, as well.) Unlike his detractors, Behe does honest science.

I apologize for suggesting that you read any source material, belatedly realizing that you’ll need to preserve your precious time, so that you can express more of your opinions on internet forums. It is bad practice to allow the tiresome process of gathering information to get in the way of self-expression. But I"ll let you know when Darwin’s Black Box— The Comic Book comes out. It won’t waste quite as much of your valuable time.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Seems to me that when we attempt to use human logic to explain some aspect of God, we are in some way trying to make God into OUR image and likeness.

There is really no way that we can use human logic, because of its limitations, to define God … such as attempting to explain how God can create something from nothing.

God is not us.

Read of, from, and about St. Thomas Aquinas after he had his vision of heaven.

Spend a few (thousand) hours in front of Jesus in Eucharistic Adoration.

Let Him work on you.

 

[greylorn]

Supernatural entities, including their powers and the implications they pose for physical statements, is not considered when looking for empirical evidence or identifying a things empirical nature. And for good reason.
The supernatural order is not physical in the strict sense of empiricism.

Rather than attempt to deal with lots of cheerless blather, I shall deal with that last statement.

It actually doesn’t mean anything, does it? Think about it. The supernatural order is not
physical in the strict sense of empiricism.

How can an “order” be physical? That’s a meaningless statement right there.

What does the “strict sense” of empiricism mean, exactly? Empiricism has several conflicting meanings. From my copy of Webster’s Dictionary: “empirical” means,

1. Derived from experience or experiment. (That’s not precise or strict, since experience is quite different from experiment.)
2. Depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory.
   .
   Isn’t it interesting that lots of people seem to think that the scientific method and empiricism are much the same thing? It is a shame that dictionaries are so expensive these days that even people who use big words cannot afford to own one.

Consider your first clause, The supernatural order is not physical… independently, since it is unrelated to the rest of your sentence. Since the term “supernatural order” does not apply to any identifiable concept, I’ll translated it to mean “God,” and any other category of immaterial, spiritual, or ineffable beings you care to describe and include.

Physics is a study of how things in the physical universe interact with one another. For a physicist, light is physical, as is matter. Electromagnetic forces which cannot be sensed by a human being are physical. Lots of people use the word physical and material as if they were synonymous, but they are not. Most of the physical universe is non-material.

A physicist regards something which interacts with anything physical, as physical itself. That is essentially a definition of “physical.” Physics started out studying the behavior of matter, the hardest of physical forms. But as the math and the methodology progressed, physics embraced concepts of phenomena far removed from its original study program— electromagnetic fields, nuclear forces, quantum theory, etc.

Now, the point: If an entity created the physical universe, and has the power to control any aspect of the physical universe, that entity is physical by definition. If God can “see” you or me or Joe Blow or be aware of our existence in some other manner, then God is physical.

If there is such a thing as the “soul” which is somehow related to our bodies and survives death of that body, then by definition, the soul is a physical entity.

Please do not to confuse “material”, which the soul and God are probably not, with “physical,” which both must be.

Any talk of the “supernatural” is without meaning. “Supernatural” is simply a term which means, in effect, here’s some stuff we don’t understand. Rather than appear ignorant (which we are) let’s declare it to be something which cannot be understood by anyone. . Only people who intend to remain ignorant will hide behind the guise of the supernatural, because they think it lets them off the hook, but it does not.

The only possible “image of His own” in which mankind can have been made is at the level of mind, since it is generally agreed, iconic artwork notwithstanding, that God does not have a material body. Therefore, if we are that closely related to God, at the level of mind we can understand the workings and purpose of all aspects of the physical universe.

You’ll understand why I gave up reading your stuff a few sentences later.

.A clear minded Catholic might be busy doing his best to rescue some belief in God from the gaping jaws of the onrushing forces of atheism. With the U.S. becoming a socialistic state, belief in God is the last hope of free men. There is a struggle coming. You’ll want to reserve a comfy seat in the spectators section.

 

[AlbertBall]

Actually, I learned about evolution by reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Descent of Man
and following up with smatterings from neo-Darwinist writers. I’ve watched the Creationist movement morph into Intelligent Design. Of course I’ve read some I.D. material. Unlike those who prefer to let others do what passes in them for thinking, I prefer to read original source material and form my own evaluations of its worth. Only after reading source material is it useful to read either approbations or criticisms of it, except for those who prefer ignorance. You would be surprised at how effective biased critics can be at taking arguments out of their original context, or not even understanding the full scope of the original argument. ----I take that back. You would not be surprised.

It is pretty clear to anyone who actually discriminates good ideas from bad ones, that the ID movement represents tweedle-dum, and Darwinists represent tweedle-dee. Or perhaps I’ve gotten that backwards.

Neither side has come up with an adequate explanation for the origin and ongoing evolution of biological life.

One reason I like Behe is because he is upfront about his beliefs (Catholic) but does not insert them into his work. He is not a proponent of I.D., although members of that movement have tried to co-opt him. He does an effective job of showing, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, that Darwinist theory does not explain the evolution of biological life. Edge of Evolution does a more effective job of this than …Black Box because it tackles more complex scientific information.

You are correct that Behe’s ideas have been debunked many times (“countless” seems an unwarranted exaggeration). I’ve read some of these, and watched the PBS putdown. However, they have been debunked by countless (because I don’t want to count) pinheads. I mention this because, since you’ve only read the debunkings, you wouldn’t know.

Unlike I.D. proponents, Behe does not propose any answers to the conundrum. (And he has rejected mine, as well.) Unlike his detractors, Behe does honest science.

I apologize for suggesting that you read any source material, belatedly realizing that you’ll need to preserve your precious time, so that you can express more of your opinions on internet forums. It is bad practice to allow the tiresome process of gathering information to get in the way of self-expression. But I"ll let you know when Darwin’s Black Box— The Comic Book comes out. It won’t waste quite as much of your valuable time.

“Darwin’s Black Box— The Comic Book” LOL i liked that one you gave me a good chuckle.

See heres the thing, you claim you learned about evolution by reading “Darwin’s *Origin of Species, Descent of Man” followed by by “smatterings from neo-Darwinist writers”. No wonder you are so mixed up. Aside for the fact the Origin of species is 150 years old, and evolution has moved on 10 fold you are making a mistake many people make.

What you SHOULD have done is got a grasp of basic science then biology before you even started to try and evaluate these claims. See most people want to talk about String theory, M-theory, Relativity, Evolution etc because they want to sound smart.

Heres the thing though, it would be FAR more productive for you to get a basic understanding of the foundations of the subject. When people skip this stage the result is obvious, and you are a perfect example. I tell you i don’t want to waste my time with pseudo science, and you imply that amounts to wanting to take in information in comic book form? Do you think i got my degree by reading comic books? Do you think in my post grad research i am reading comic books?

You claimed to be a post grad in physics? Then i fail to see how you cannot understand the scientific method? I DON’T need to read junk science that is the WHOLE POINT OF THE METHOD, the process of peer review weeds out pseudo science.

" I mention this because, since you’ve only read the debunkings, you wouldn’t know. "

Err Dover trial? Did the Discovery Institute not get to present their side? Well the ones that turned up LOL.

Creationism (I.D. and yes it is the SAME thing) is a joke, i am sorry that you cannot see this. Why don’t you start fresh and learn biology from the ground up. You wont need to get any where near degree level before you can see Creationism for what it is, unless of course like Behe you are a Fringe Scientist with an agenda.*

 

[AlbertBall]

If there is such a thing as the “soul” which is somehow related to our bodies and survives death of that body, then by definition, the soul is a physical entity.

Please do not to confuse “material”, which the soul and God are probably not, with “physical,” which both must be.

Any talk of the “supernatural” is without meaning. “Supernatural” is simply a term which means, in effect, here’s some stuff we don’t understand. Rather than appear ignorant (which we are) let’s declare it to be something which cannot be understood by anyone. . Only people who intend to remain ignorant will hide behind the guise of the supernatural, because they think it lets them off the hook, but it does not.

It seems we agree on something. Though this would suggest that we should be able to test for god?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Explain gravity.

How fast is it?

And where it comes from.

Compared with trying to explain God, explaining gravity should be a piece of cake.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Rather than attempt to deal with lots of cheerless blather, I shall deal with that last statement.

It actually doesn’t mean anything, does it? Think about it. The supernatural order is not
physical in the strict sense of empiricism.

It does mean something if you respect the distinction between supernatural beings and the physical. The scientific method is a principle of investigation that purposely ingnores inteligent design in order so that we can better understand the natural world (physical cuases). Its a principle. Trying to redefine science so that we can include supernatural entities in our hypothesis, undermines scientific investigation.

“Physical property, any aspect of an object or substance that can be measured or perceived without changing its identity”

We use the term physical to talk about the universe; i.e. everything that is mersurable and arises “naturally” without the direct interaction of some supernatural being that cannot be measured. The scientific method is a principle of investigation. The definition between supernatural cuases and physical cuases has been invented inorder so that we can investigate these things separately through different methods. Notice that we don’t have any scientific theory that proves that other minds with freewill exist. We accept theses truths philsophically, not scientifically.

But if you merely define physical as something that is a cuase of some sort or interacts in someway with something else, then yes God is physical.