Discovery Channel's "Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?"

[James1215]

Thanks for the advice, but I think my points are clear and easy to follow, whether one person denies it or not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey, also - at least people can demonstrate that UV radiation exists

How do you know that’s not an evil demon feeding your senses false information? The only object that one can prove exists is Dubito, a rational, not empirical object.

 

[James1215]

That’s an intriguing idea, but we have no way to say for sure that our senses are deceptive. Sometimes some perceptions undermine others, but we have no position from which to disavow all perception as illusory. Supposing a god exists or clinging to pure Reason doesn’t change this.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thanks for the advice, but I think my points are clear and easy to follow, whether one person denies it or not.

They are clear, easy to follow, and easy to refute. After all, you refused to use a dictionary because its full of tautologies. How seriously can we take arguments like that?

 

[James1215]

They are clear, easy to follow, and easy to refute. After all, you refused to use a dictionary because its full of tautologies. How seriously can we take arguments like that?

Very seriously, if you know what tautologies are. You quoted my words, if in doubt you can refer back to them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s an intriguing idea, but we have no way to say for sure that our senses are deceptive. Sometimes some perceptions undermine others, but we have no position from which to disavow all perception as illusory. Supposing a god exists or clinging to pure Reason doesn’t change this.

You have no reason to assume it is not an illusion. You wouldn’t be able to tell. The only thing that you know exists for sure is that article of pure reason, rationalism. Dubito. It definitely looks like clinging to pure Reason, changes everything.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Very seriously, if you know what tautologies are. You quoted my words, if in doubt you can refer back to them.

I know what they are. I know they aren’t a problem. I know the rest of the world uses dictionaries.

 

[James1215]

You have no reason to assume it is not an illusion. You wouldn’t be able to tell. The only thing that you know exists for sure is that article of pure reason, rationalism. Dubito. It definitely looks like clinging to pure Reason, changes everything.

It doesn’t matter whether perception is ‘illusory’, because it is all we have to experience reality. We make predictions about that which we perceive, and then know whether they’re proved right by our perceptions. Given that we have no reason to doubt them, it is actually irrational to pursue that kind of doubt.

 

[James1215]

I know what they are. I know they aren’t a problem. I know the rest of the world uses dictionaries.

Yes, to understand language, not to find out definitively what exists. It would be the end of investigation, science, experimentation etc etc - if dictionaries provided the answer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It doesn’t matter whether perception is ‘illusory’, because it is all we have to experience reality. We make predictions about that which we perceive, and then know whether they’re proved right by our perceptions. Given that we have no reason to doubt them, it is actually irrational to pursue that kind of doubt.

How do you know that you are experiencing reality at all? The fact is that you do not. You assume it. I do not need to assume the truth of Dubito. By doubting everything, I am left only with Dubito. The fact is that empiricists must assume the truth of empirical reality, while rationalists do not. Rationalism is superior to empiricism. It’s not contradictory, and it’s not an assumption. Both of which are problems with empiricism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, to understand language, not to find out definitively what exists. It would be the end of investigation, science, experimentation etc etc - if dictionaries provided the answer.

What are you talking about? Dictionaries have been in use for thousands of years, yet here we are with science. What do you think a dictionary has to do with what exists? You are making some really strange statements in the attempt to justify not using standard terminology. How about you just use standard terminology instead?

 

[James1215]

There is no split between ‘reality’ and perception, because the only reality we have access to is that which is, was, will or could be perceptible. Even God and an afterlife could fit in there. There is no way to doubt this without entering into impossibilities, and therefore, no need to try.

Anyway, I do not want to clog up this thread about the Discovery programme with things that are irrelevant.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no split between ‘reality’ and perception, because the only reality we have access to is that which is, was, will or could be perceptible.

How do you know that the demon isn’t blanking out 456 senses and only leaving you 5? You don’t. You have to assume it. Rationalists don’t have to assume anything in Dubito.

Even God and an afterlife could fit in there. There is no way to doubt this without entering into impossibilities, and therefore, no need to try.

What impossibilities are you referring to?

Anyway, I do not want to clog up this thread about the Discovery programme with things that are irrelevant.

You didn’t mind on the Colossal accident thread, why is this one different?

 

[exnihilo]

Fair enough if there is, but I can’t say I’ve heard of it. What good would a philosophical time be if it wasn’t found in reality? My point is that any arguments from the idea that time is simply observed change are suspect. Isn’t it possible for time to exist when no change happens? A more complex and less anthropocentric notion of time complicates the idea of a God outside time.

I dont think philosophical time would not be found in reality. I think it might be different than time as used in other ways. There is an A Theory and B Theory of time. I forget exactly what each says but both are quite interesting ideas. As I recall one disputes the classic idea of time and the other confirms our psychological understanding of the movement of time from the past to the future.

As far as time existing without change I dont know if that is possible. Time as commonly used seems to incorporate the idea of change. One interesting question is can something be infinite in the past. It seems to me probably not. So in that sense time is really characterized by change since it has a starting point and the very idea of starting point must include change.

 

[Neildown]

I think you might be too strong in your description of time being a fabrication. We certainly sense the passage of time. As to what precisely time is we may have no sure way of currently knowing. It seems to involve change and the feeling of movement. I would not want to deny this experience because it seems so genuine. For me I have a harder time understanding the eternal than time because time is what I have experience with.

I can see your point - we’ve probably, more accurately, fabricated the definition of time. Thank you for pointing that out.

However, in a different way it does seem fabricated specifically for us, for the fact that only we in the physical world are limited by it. Apparently from what we know of spirituality there is an absence of “time” as we know it in that reality. I personally think this goes hand in hand with Einstein’s theory of general relativity. His theory dictates that matter [at least physical matter that we perceive as such] bends space and time. Considering the spiritual world apparently has no physical matter in it, that may give an explanation as to why it is not affected by time and how it is not located in any specific location for us. It might also explain how spiritual beings are able to trans-locate to any location in an instant, and lots of other things potentially really.

 

[James1215]

I dont think philosophical time would not be found in reality. I think it might be different than time as used in other ways. There is an A Theory and B Theory of time. I forget exactly what each says but both are quite interesting ideas. As I recall one disputes the classic idea of time and the other confirms our psychological understanding of the movement of time from the past to the future.

As far as time existing without change I dont know if that is possible. Time as commonly used seems to incorporate the idea of change. One interesting question is can something be infinite in the past. It seems to me probably not. So in that sense time is really characterized by change since it has a starting point and the very idea of starting point must include change.

I’ll look it up! I’d say change relies upon time, but not time on change. What if the past was infinite because the passage of time was circular? It doesn’t seem that way, because of the Big Bang, put perhaps it’s not theoretically impossible. In any case, considerations of time are not relevant to ‘before’ the BB, obviously because there was no before.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’ll look it up! I’d say change relies upon time, but not time on change.

Based on what?

 

[greylorn]

Actually, some physicists (eg Lawrence Krauss) think that it may be possible for laws of physics to be generated spontaneously along with the time and space to which they apply. This would mean that the ‘existence’ of laws or specifically, say, the law of conservation of matter/energy do not necessarily preclude their creation by a God. It just depends on what sort of God is envisaged, if one has faith.

Yes, Krauss. He’s one of the bobble-heads on the Science Channel’s Dr. Caca show. IMO the man is just another atheistically programmed nit who’s trying to bend physics principles to justify his disbelief. He is not interesting. He is one of the supporters of the channel’s “Creation from Nothing” program. If you’ve been paying attention, the Church has been declaring that God created the universe from nothing for at least a millennium.

Atheists used to ridicule that bit of dogma, as it deserves to be ridiculed. But how is the exact same dogma suddenly a brilliant idea when the atheist nits finally figured out that it is the only solution to their “How did the Big Bang originate?” problem? Garbage is not transformed into gold because a hack physicist who can’t hold his head still spouts it loudly and authoritatively on TV. TV is what you turn on so that cartoon lizards can sell you crummy insurance.

Don’t let a nitwit atheist guide you into the caves of dumbthink. You have the right idea— much depends upon the definition and understanding of the nature and properties of God.

Religions have adopted a definition of God that does not make sense in the context of the physical universe He supposedly created, and atheists have chosen to disbelieve in that very God. Few have considered the notion you snuck up on in your post— the possibility of a different definition of God. .

Forget faith and ignore the atheist nits on the Dr. Caca show, who are simply promoting their own religion. It is entirely possible to derive a sensible God-concept from physics theory and the available evidence, and which has no contradictions with reality (i.e. does not need clever apologists to spin the contradictions and pretend that they do not exist),

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… the Church has been declaring that God created the universe from nothing for at least a millennium…

Not exactly. Excuse the length please.

newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm

Definition

Like other words of the same ending, the term creation signifies both an action and the object or effect thereof. Thus, in the latter sense, we speak of the “kingdoms of creation”, “the whole creation”, and so on. In the former sense the word sometimes stands for productive activity generally (e.g. to create joy, trouble, etc.), but more especially for a higher order of such efficiency (e.g. artistic creation). In technically theological and philosophical use it expresses the act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence — productio totius substantiâ ex nihilo sui et subjecti. In every kind of production the specific effect had as such no previous existence, and may therefore be said to have been educed ex nihilo sui — from a state of non-existence — so far as its specific character is concerned (e.g. a statue out of crude marble); but what is peculiar to creation is the entire absence of any prior subject-matter — ex nihilo subjecti. It is therefore likewise the production totius substantiæ — of the entire substance. The preposition ex, “out of”, in the above definition does not, of course, imply that nihil, “nothing”, is to be conceived as the material out of which a thing is made — materia ex quâ — a misconception which has given rise to the puerile objection against the possibility of creation conveyed by the phrase, ex nihilo nihil fit — “nothing comes of nothing”. The ex means (a) the negation of prejacent material, out of which the product might otherwise be conceived to proceed, and (b) the order of succession, viz., existence after non-existence. It follows, therefore, that;

creation is not a change or transformation, since the latter process includes an actual underlying pre-existent subject that passes from one real state to another real state, which subject creation positively excludes;
it is not a procession within the Deity, like the inward emission of the Divine Persons, since its term is extrinsic to God;
it is not an emanation from the Divine Substance, since the latter is utterly indivisible;
it is an act which, while it abides within its cause (God), has its term or effect distinct therefrom; formally immanent, it is virtually transitive;
including, as it does, no motion, and hence no successiveness, it is an instantaneous operation;
its immediate term is the substance of the effect, the "accidents" (q.v.) being "con-created";
since the word creation in its passive sense expresses the term or object of the creative act, or, more strictly, the object in its entitative dependence on the Creator, it follows that, as this dependence is essential, and hence inamissible, the creative act once placed is coextensive in duration with the creature's existence.

However, as thus continuous, it is called conservation, an act, therefore, which is nothing else than the unceasing influx of the creative cause upon the existence of the creature. Inasmuch as that influx is felt immediately on the creature’s activity, it is called concurrence. Creation, conservation, and concurrence are, therefore, really identical and only notionally distinguished. Other characteristics there are, the more important of which will come out in what follows.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… the Church has been declaring that God created the universe from nothing for at least a millennium…

Creatio Ex Nihilo does not mean “creation from nothing” as the English sense of the phrase would imply. It does not mean there is a substance called “nothing” from which things are made. The difference between the English translation and the actual meaning in Latin give rise to such wrongheaded ideas. newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm