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

[warpspeedpetey]

…The truth is, I never studied Latin.

Then why make statements about something of which you are unaware?

Did learn some math.

Hey! Me too! But you’re an engineer aren’t you? You probably think that mere calculation is mathematics…let’s see.

So, unlike you, I never got confused about the meaning of nothing or the applicability of zero

Yup, you think that “nothing” and zero are the same thing. Please don’t bother to talk to me about math until you actual know something a calculator can’t tell me.

in solutions to real physics problems.

What do you think physics has to do with anything? Its way late in the logical buildup to creation. All the interesting things happen long before the resolution of physical laws from a material universe.

Why on earth would you imagine for a minute that issues which have sorely confused you in the past have ever troubled anyone else?

You’re right, ignorance is bliss. The ignorant are never troubled because they don’t know there is something to be troubled about. Thankfully we aren’t ignorant, huh?

BTW, will these ad hominems be followed with any argumentation?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…The other thing is whether it is even necessary to posit a causer/unmoved mover/first cause. How can we be sure that this is necessary?

Because contingent beings require a cause.

That seems ultimately a matter of faith, yet is the basis for some reasoning I’ve seen that a god exists.

It’s pretty much standard metaphysics, no faith involved.

…He wouldn’t survive in the competitive academic world …

That doesn’t bother you when you quote from a non-peer reviewed, non-published paper written by a guy without tenure, elsewhere.

…If God can do without causes, the universe is not maybe the universe can too.

G-d needs no cause because he is logically necessary. He is Actus Purus, the very act of existing, the negation of which is the “act of not existing”, a logical contradiction. Thus G-d is formally logically necessary. Therefore there is no other possible state of reality than for G-d to be. The universe on the other hand is not logically necessary. It or any part of it can fail to exist without presenting a logical contradiction.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Science doesn’t make absolute metaphysical statements; since they are operating within the epistemological limits of inductive physics, and physics is not metaphysics. Thus your position is conceptually flawed from the outset, revealing only that you fail to understand the epistemology of science. Yup

"Nothing physical

 

[crazzeto]

But on this point, how can anyone claim God is outside time? Is there any evidence or is it a position one is forced to assume? I wonder if any temporal evidence can show the existence of something outside time. If God is outside time, or if anything is, how can they interact with physical things that are in time? It’s not simply the Earth that time was created for, but everything. God is forced to reside outside the universe as a non-material, non-energy ‘thing’. In what way could Jesus have been of God, and how can transubstantiation work? Is it really God inside there…?

So many questions! These are just curiosities, no atheist plot to take over the world, but interesting nevertheless.

God is necessarly outside of time because God is eternal, whether we are speaking theologically or scientifically (there is no conflict here) time is a part of creation. An Athiest like Stephen Hawkings would processes it as “time was created at the same time as the rest of the universe durring the big bang”, a believe would say when God created the heavens and the earth (using something like a big bang? who knows) time was then created for us.

Either way, you seem to assume that time always existed. This is a falsehood whether you accept Hawkings position or that of a believer. We know God to be eternal, there for he is outside of time. As the scripture says, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God. Every moment in what we call time is present to God. Christ is presently starting his ministry, he is also presently being tortured, he is presently dieing upon the cross, you are presently writing the message I just responded too, ceaser is presently invading Rome for the first time. Everything is present to God, he is there for outside of time.

God bless,

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You are absolutely correct about the ambiguity of the word “God,” although here on CAF that is rarely an issue.

I think the domain on which this forum lives sets a context in which to interpret the word “God”. But when talking about the thoughts of those that are outside of this forum some times a bit of qualification is needed.

I tried your Great Debate link. It reached terminal stupidity about 50 seconds in.

Yeah, he tends to package his points in silliness. I can understand not tolerating displays of stupidity.

But since you’ve made much good sense, I respect your judgment, and if you think there is worthwhile or even interesting material further along, can you direct me to a simple English language transcript to bypass the video garbage? Thanks!

None of which I know. You have not missed much. I won’t expose you to more stupidity than you endured for the first 50 seconds. The parts worth considering can be summed in a few sentences.

It started out with what was supposed to be a debate between theism vs atheism but it never gets that far. When the opening speaker first speaks of “God” the other three members on his panel agree. At least until he makes mention to Genesis and communion. That’s when you find out that they don’t mean the same thing by the word “God.” They start using the names of their gods (Yahweh, Allah, Lord Brahma, and Amun(?). (I could be wrong here, but I think Brahma is a Hindu god, so that one speaker could be a polytheist, possibly a monolatrist.) The debate is essentially cancelled as they leave to settle who is the true God.

Since these concepts of God can be divided across lines of religion it is easier to separate them. But that difference makes it easier to illustrate something that may be applicable to people within what would otherwise be viewed in the same family of religions.

The USA constitution prohibits the government from passing laws that give preference to a religion. “God” has been used as a work around. On occasions when it’s use in government has been challenged it’s been stated that “God” isn’t specific to a religion and thus isn’t religious and the reader can apply their personal meaning to the word. So the word gets applied to concepts including an invasive thinking super natural personal being, impersonal forces (among others). But the names of God specific to religions remain less diluted.

 

[Neildown]

It’s always interesting to read the various posts because most have there own personal biases concerning God…Most get there understanding from dogmatic views that were pounded into there heads early in life and reinforced every Sunday at church.

If you think that this is simply something I heard at church you are greatly mistaken - this is an hypothesis of my own which I have been pondering on for probably over a year now.

I think this world would be much better if we all sought knowledge instead of being constained by outdated myths and hearsays.

You are being contained by your own apparent opinion that something cannot exist outside of our physical perception. All you’re giving is a potshot philosophy/opinion no better than the one I commented on and disassembled in the first place. I’ve given my knowledge and would prefer to hear yours before you simply make baseless, withering remarks.

Science is not perfect but it does seek answers to the mysteries of the universe. Please accept what it has to offer…it will definitely broaden your knowledge base. Amen!

This is flawed - you ask me to be open-minded and to “broaden” my knowledge base, yet I’ve just given a broader point of view than any secular scientist is willing to. If you deliberately limit yourself to purely secular science in this particular issue when you know there is such a thing as spirituality, you may just be willingly shoving your head in the ground. IMHO, that’s not very smart science… Instead of bashing people for views that top your own [considering you didn’t even give a relevant argument] I suggest making one that tops mine.

 

[Contarini]

I assume ‘beyond being’ is not comparable to ‘beyond caring’

On a more serious note, how can something exist that is beyond being itself? Beyond the perceptible world, maybe, but beyond existence? Seems like it’s either a contradiction, or a different point cloaked in mystical language.

In the apophatic tradition, God is beyond anything that can be expressed in human language. Strictly speaking, the only way you can say something entirely true about God is to use negative language. “God is living” is not entirely false, but is misleading, because the connotations of “living” for us involve being a biological organism, which God isn’t. But “God is not dead” is entirely correct. “God loves us” is not entirely false, but is misleading, because God (in the classic tradition) does not have emotions as we do. But “God hates nothing” is entirely true.

This is obviously rather unsatisfactory in many ways. There are two major ways around it, each associated with a great medieval theologian, one in the West and one in the East.

Aquinas argued that we can speak of God in positive terms though “analogy”–something between metaphorical and literal speech, expressing partially but not inaccurately the reality that exceeds our language.

Gregory Palamas, on the other hand, argued that God’s essence is wholly indescribable, but that His uncreated energies can be described.

Edwin

 

[Neildown]

Energy is what gives us life and everything in existence.

Yes it does, because we need it to function in our physical world.

It is not random or impersonal.

I’ll get back with you on that one when you provide evidence for your claims.

We could not think, move, love, hate, breathe etc. without energy.

Of course we couldn’t, but it does not make up our spiritual being, which is my point. Our souls are beyond our physical perception - you can’t see a soul, nor can you harness it like electricity.

 

[RobbyS]

Sure, validation of the idea of a beginning, but revision to include the beginning of the whole massive universe rather than just the earth. I think that casts more doubt than support. As Sam Harris has amusingly pointed out, water was created before hydrogen according to the Bible, yet of course water contains hydrogen. The idea that life begins at conception… tricky. Is that in the Bible? It may have emerged simultaneously with the evidence for life at conception. As yet there is no validation of a soul at conception, nor even of a soul at all, and that rather than mere life is the Christian bit. Science shows that we can discern order in the universe, which is a claim of Christianity…? I think we can have an order without it being God’s order, but as yet order is definitely evidenced. I don’t know if progress is actually a Christian idea, and it is difficult to see how progress has been validated. As to the other religious ideas, isn’t the Creation also a matter of divine whim? God is not subject to reason, is He? No idea how Original Sin has been validated either, as the existence of moral attitudes does not show that we are objectively bad and that we Fell. Even so, I realise this is nothing conclusive for whether someone should have faith nor am I helping keep on topic!

Let me play with that hydrogen bit. First of all, have you ever seen hydrogen? No, it is simply something whose existence we accept because someone has told us about it. Priestly discovered “it” by doing some tricks that indicate the “air,” which once was called an element is divisible. His focus was, of course, on Oxygen, but that indirectly led to the “discover” of hydrogen. It is not something that appears to the senses, like water.

I am not someone who takes the Bible in only a literal sense. Neither is the pope, but you can look up his views just by going to Amazon. My totally nonauthoritative
view is that Genesis can only be understand against the background of the cosmology held by the peoples of the ancient Middle East. It describes creation in language that makes sense to its audience. It is “myth” in the sense that science, or at least our popular knowledge of science is myth. Carl Sagan was a mythologizer; Teilhard De Chardin was, in a different way, a mythologizer. DARWIN was a mythologizer when he wrote his second book. They all address people looking for certainly, for some place to plant their feet in reason. “Moses” or whoever wrote Genesis was addressing a public that is very different from us.
At the same time, he is telling a story that was very different from the usual “creation.” story that was current in the Middle East. One can say, he was “positing,” a god who is also Creator. Not simply an almighty god who is above all the otrher gods, but a creator. It is not, however, a concept that is fully worked out. That takes the next millenium, a process that parallels and converges with the speculations of the Greeks and the Persians. Just read Josephus: there is a reason–apart from politics–that made him say that Plato had copied Moses. “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” The remark was ironic, but in terms of the development of Western thought, the answer is clear. Quite a lot. And the asserting this is the basis of the apolgetic that without the Jews, no Christ, and without Christ and Christianity, no science.

 

[greylorn]

ThinkingSapien:

I think the domain on which this forum lives sets a context in which to interpret the word “God”. But when talking about the thoughts of those that are outside of this forum some times a bit of qualification is needed.

…I won’t expose you to more stupidity than you endured for the first 50 seconds. The parts worth considering can be summed in a few sentences.

It started out with what was supposed to be a debate between theism vs atheism but it never gets that far. When the opening speaker first speaks of “God” the other three members on his panel agree. At least until he makes mention to Genesis and communion. That’s when you find out that they don’t mean the same thing by the word “God.” They start using the names of their gods (Yahweh, Allah, Lord Brahma, and Amun(?). (I could be wrong here, but I think Brahma is a Hindu god, so that one speaker could be a polytheist, possibly a monolatrist.) The debate is essentially cancelled as they leave to settle who is the true God.

I appreciate your style, and the merciful summary that followed. Given the useful final point, I now understand why you passed the URL along.

Given that alternative theology is my avocation, I’m curious as to whether you have a favorite God-concept— or even better, one of your own invention.

ThinkingSapien:

Since these concepts of God can be divided across lines of religion it is easier to separate them. But that difference makes it easier to illustrate something that may be applicable to people within what would otherwise be viewed in the same family of religions.

The USA constitution prohibits the government from passing laws that give preference to a religion. “God” has been used as a work around. On occasions when it’s use in government has been challenged it’s been stated that “God” isn’t specific to a religion and thus isn’t religious and the reader can apply their personal meaning to the word. So the word gets applied to concepts including an invasive thinking super natural personal being, impersonal forces (among others). But the names of God specific to religions remain less diluted.

I appreciate that perspective. This is an issue I’ve tried to address, but was unaware that attorneys have actually used that angle and done so successfully. Good!

 

[James1215]

In the apophatic tradition, God is beyond anything that can be expressed in human language. Strictly speaking, the only way you can say something entirely true about God is to use negative language. “God is living” is not entirely false, but is misleading, because the connotations of “living” for us involve being a biological organism, which God isn’t. But “God is not dead” is entirely correct. “God loves us” is not entirely false, but is misleading, because God (in the classic tradition) does not have emotions as we do. But “God hates nothing” is entirely true.

…

Gregory Palamas, on the other hand, argued that God’s essence is wholly indescribable, but that His uncreated energies can be described.

Edwin

Thanks for replying! How does anyone know the boundaries of what exactly about God is comprehensible, and what is not? Is this something people feel?

 

[RobbyS]

In the apophatic tradition, God is beyond anything that can be expressed in human language. Strictly speaking, the only way you can say something entirely true about God is to use negative language. “God is living” is not entirely false, but is misleading, because the connotations of “living” for us involve being a biological organism, which God isn’t. But “God is not dead” is entirely correct. “God loves us” is not entirely false, but is misleading, because God (in the classic tradition) does not have emotions as we do. But “God hates nothing” is entirely true.

This is obviously rather unsatisfactory in many ways. There are two major ways around it, each associated with a great medieval theologian, one in the West and one in the East.

Aquinas argued that we can speak of God in positive terms though “analogy”–something between metaphorical and literal speech, expressing partially but not inaccurately the reality that exceeds our language.

Gregory Palamas, on the other hand, argued that God’s essence is wholly indescribable, but that His uncreated energies can be described.

Edwin

Words have their limits. One can describe in general terms, a forest. But no one can describe everything in that forest. By God we are not talking about an object or the sum of all objects, but a person who speaks to us always through intrepreters in the language we share with the interpreter, or tells us His meaning worllessly through the events that pass before our gaze, or directly to our souls. Then we feebly try to interpret all this to the world to others.

 

[rel1]

These are questions I pondered upon viewing this video. Please feel free to answer if your willing…Thanks!

1.Is there anything in existence that is truly discrete? In other words can anything exists in a vacuum or by itself?

2.Could God exist in nothingness if he was something?

3.Isn’t it rational to believe that everything in existence must be a part of God if there was only God and nothing else to create from?

4.If we are not part of God then are we nothing?

5.Who or what could call God a God before a conscious mind??

6.Why would God want to be God?
a) Why would a God create such an immense universe which a conscious mind will never experience?

7.Can time exist without an observable event or a conscious mind?

8.Can anything exist beyond the NOW? Can time, space, matter, consciousness, God?

9.Isn’t the universe being continuously created if everything is in constant change and the future will never be our reality?

10.Is there truly anything known that is not recycled or reabsorbed into the universe upon death?

11.Why are we stuck on the belief that a singular event created the universe if everything known requires dependency?

12.Is it reasonable to imagine that this universe will eventually recycle into another after death?

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for replying! How does anyone know the boundaries of what exactly about God is comprehensible, and what is not? Is this something people feel?

Religious experience no doubt plays a role in convincing many of us that there is an ineffable reality.

However, both logical arguments and Christian Scripture/tradition play a more decisive role.

The early questions (2-13) of the Summa Theologiae lay out the classic Western Christian position very well. I can try to summarize/explain, but if you are seriously interested it is worth your time to study at least this section of the Summa, bearing in mind that it’s not the only traditional Christian view but one very influential one.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Words have their limits. One can describe in general terms, a forest. But no one can describe everything in that forest

I think this is a bad example, because theoretically one could, given enough time and resources. In practice, sure, no one is going to. But that’s not the claim of the classic Christian tradition about God. We can’t describe God adequately because of who God is and who we are, not just because of a lack of time or resources.

Edwin

 

[rel1]

I think this is a bad example, because theoretically one could, given enough time and resources. In practice, sure, no one is going to. But that’s not the claim of the classic Christian tradition about God. We can’t describe God adequately because of who God is and who we are, not just because of a lack of time or resources.

Edwin

 

[rel1]

Who is God?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. Is there anything in existence that is truly discrete? In other words can anything exists in a vacuum or by itself?

A vacuum is a thing and G-d as Actus Purus is formally logically necessary because the negation of the act of existing is the act of not existing, an obvious logical contradiction. There is no other possible sate of reality than for G-d to be. Thus G-d is logically necessary and requires no cause.

2.Could God exist in nothingness if he was something?

An existent nothing is a logical contradiction, see #1

3.Isn’t it rational to believe that everything in existence must be a part of God if there was only God and nothing else to create from?

No, G-ds essence, Actus Purus is logically necessary. Everything else in existence is contingent, relying on the act of existing for their existential manifestation. They have a different essences and are therefore different beings from G-d.

4.If we are not part of God then are we nothing?

No, we are contingent beings.

5.Who or what could call God a God before a conscious mind??
6.Why would God want to be God?

I have no Idea what these sentences mean.

a) Why would a God create such an immense universe which a conscious mind will never experience?

Why do you think no conscious mind will ever experience it? I fully intend to explore all of creation quite thoroughly just as soon as I get home.

7.Can time exist without an observable event or a conscious mind?

Time doesn’t exist. It’s just a measure of change

8.Can anything exist beyond the NOW? Can time, space, matter, consciousness, God?

See #7

9.Isn’t the universe being continuously created if everything is in constant change and the future will never be our reality?

I have no idea what this sentence means.

10.Is there truly anything known that is not recycled or reabsorbed into the universe upon death?

G-d.

11.Why are we stuck on the belief that a singular event created the universe if everything known requires dependency?

Not everything reuires a dependency, see #1

12.Is it reasonable to imagine that this universe will eventually recycle into another after death?

I have no idea what this sentence means either. Several of these questions seem a little “mystical”. I am not sure what to make of them. Can you rephrase them in more rational terms?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

who is god?

He said…I AM WHO AM.

 

[Contarini]

Who is God?

In purely philosophical terms, we cannot say “who” or “what” God is, but we can deduce that there is a spiritual cause of the material reality we observe, and that this cause is eternal and possesses all the perfections found in creatures.

Again, questions 2-13 of Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae are the classic Western Christian exposition of this.

We Christians believe that this “First Cause” has revealed Himself to ancient Israel as “YHWH” and to the whole world in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This latter belief has led to the further conviction that God exists eternally in three Persons, the second of whom became incarnate for our salvation in Jesus.

Edwin