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

[Contarini]

I saw the program. Hawking’s basic premise is that as there was no “time” inside the singularity that created the Big Bang, then there is no need to answer the question, “what came before?”,

This is the standard misunderstanding of Aquinas’s Five Ways, which have nothing to do with time.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As you asked, that was what you wrote which got me thinking. God is not both prior to being and a being, surely.

God is not “a” being but (in the Thomistic understanding) Being itself.

There’s an alternative view more prevalent in Eastern Christianity (though it influenced Aquinas and he was responding to it in part) that God is in fact “beyond Being.”

Edwin

 

[James1215]

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),

Krauss is not a nit, I think. He said himself in debate with William Lane Craig that he finds it conceivable to believe in a god that provides some of the answers for origin of the universe questions. I could accept in principle that there might be a thing that is very difficult or impossible to know about but which was responsible for cosmological things. However, how should I/we know? If we have to posit a super-natural, super-empirical thing, we obviously venture speculatively beyond the reach of having evidence. 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? That seems ultimately a matter of faith, yet is the basis for some reasoning I’ve seen that a god exists.

So anyway, LK is not an atheist first and a rigorous thinker/scientist second. He wouldn’t survive in the competitive academic world if that were so, as the numerous other (religious) scientists would have a field day exposing bad science led by personal beliefs. Also, is there any reason to think that God had a cause? If God can do without causes, maybe the universe can too.

I would say that redefining the notion of a god is not the same as coming to a new view of [the Christian] God, rather, if certain ideas make no sense, we’ve got them wrong. If there is a sensible god-concept that can be derived from physics, by that do you mean perceptible? How would one go about finding a god within the universe?

 

[James1215]

God is not “a” being but (in the Thomistic understanding) Being itself.

There’s an alternative view more prevalent in Eastern Christianity (though it influenced Aquinas and he was responding to it in part) that God is in fact “beyond Being.”

Edwin

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.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

According to Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. God therefore cannot have created it.

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.

"Nothing physical, nothing that in principle falls within the quantifiable measurable definitions intrinsic to the application of the scientific method, can create or destroy energy "; this is the proper epistemological context in which the statement is operating. It is not an absolute metaphysical statement. It says nothing and cannot possibly say anything about powers or entities that might exist outside the scientific definition of knowledge.

The program that came on the discovery channel was laboring under the same epistemological fallacy that you time and time again seem quite pleased to express here on catholic answers without fail. You seem to be willing to ignore this blatant error which Catholics such as my self have been happy to expose in your limited way of thinking.

This is not a difficult thing to grasp. Don’t let pride hold you back.

 

[rel1]

I didn’t watch the program, nor did I even know about it for that matter, but I think the things you brought up show the narrowness that some atheists actually possess.

God didn’t have enough time to create the universe? Really? Do they understand the basic CONCEPT of God? Nonetheless the complexities of alternate realities?

First of all, God is not bound by the fabrication we call time. What we call “time” is the earth revolving around the sun, creating night and day at a steady pace in a way in which we can understand or record it. It is simply something we made up so that we could somewhat understand it. We have no way to tell whether or not “time” started with the creation of the universe - this is just a shallow, philosophical potshot in my opinion.

Also, anyone in the field of this science should be able to realize that this world, this universe, this existence in which we thrive, is below the one the ultimate Creator possesses or lives in if He is in fact out there. You have to look at existence itself much like a spectrum - there is physical and then there is spiritual - 2 different levels of existence. I’d have no doubt that there are maybe even more “existences” out there than just physical and spiritual. Perhaps the “spiritual” we know of actually leads on to another higher place and another after that, and so on, and perhaps there are lower realities than physicality, though I haven’t seen evidence for that one. Point is, you can only make a definitive conclusion on the formation of the universe if you shut yourself in a secular box - it may lead you to an easier, quicker conclusion, but it isn’t utilizing all the evidence given, thus it is flawed.

Another thing which I thought I would address, as I saw someone say God is “energy”. God cannot be energy because energy is impersonal and random - it does not feel, it does not sense, it does not love. He is obviously not of this world, but this world of His making. He exists in a higher state than anything we can perceive in this universe, thus it stands to reason that He is more than “energy”.

 

[rel1]

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

 

[buffalo]

Are you The Shadow now, knowing what lurks in the minds of men? (By the way, hearts don’t have secret depths, or thoughts, and do not cry out. The heart is a pump. An anatomy book might be helpful.)

According to Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. God therefore cannot have created it.

Kindly spare us the argument that God created energy such that it cannot be created or destroyed. Advancing such nonsense would mark you as incompetent at dealing with the most simple and obvious logic, and I do not want a good friend like you to look like a dogma-ridden nit here on CAF.

Don’t use an argument involving “time” either. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics are each time-independent. (See how determined I am to help you out, that you do not write something that would make you look ignorant? )

Quantum physics posits the universe is porous. It is in these pores that God sustains the universe. God, the observer, can influence energy.

 

[rel1]

rel1:
Energy is what gives us life and everything in existence. It is not random or impersonal…It encompasses the whole universe. We could not think, move, love, hate, breathe etc. without energy.

 

[vz71]

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!

As does religion.
I have found all too often science to limit approaches to a given problem with a bias against God.

 

[dani9357]

I just read the first post in this thread, so I’m replying to that. My only problem with god not creating the universe because of time is that I feel time is a way for humans to measure their own existence and the existence of things we/they have created. Maybe, if there is a god, he has no sense of time seeing as how he is eternal. Likewise, when we die and if there is an eternal afterlife, we won’t have the same sense of time.

 

[dani9357]

As does religion.
I have found all too often science to limit approaches to a given problem with a bias against God.

Well, I don’t believe this. Scientists merely try to find more complex and enriching answers other than “Goddidit”. To take the aforementioned stance is lazy because if God really did it, wouldn’t you want to know how? If there is a god, He gave us a brain for a reason. To not use it would be wasteful. Furthermore, and this is me going on a tangent, I think that people shouldn’t be afraid of trying to find things that would contradict their religion. Take for example, Darwin. I highly doubt he was hellbent on disproving creationism.

 

[buffalo]

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Few have considered the notion you snuck up on in your post— the possibility of a different definition of God.

I don’t think the number that have considered it is as low as you might thing. The multitude of the definitions for gods (or a single god) or the great liberty applied to adding or removing defining characteristics has come up in many Internet discussions, live debates, books, and so on.

I’ve brought up the word “ignostic” in this forum before. Ignostic goes beyond agnostic in that it also considers the varrying definitions of gods and has the view that a meaning full definition must first be reached before a discussion of whether or not he/she/it/they exists. Lots of cultures and religions have their own concept of a god, and within those cultures and religions the concept can be further fractured. Just as one could hold a debate on “Does God exists” one could also hold a debate on “Which God Exists”. (NonStamp collector made a parody of this concept in the video “The Great Debate” that touches on this and includes Hawking’s views)

It’s also been noted that concepts of gods have evolved over time. Those concepts usually place a god in places in which we have little understanding (“God of the Gaps”).

Not that it removes all of the ambiguity but if I am talking about the Christian god then I use the name “Yahweh.” When some one says “God created the universe” the statement is more vague than saying “Yahweh created the universe.” The weaker assertion from using the word “God” is more convenient when you want to include a larger audience and let them fill in the gaps with their own beliefs.

 

[vz71]

Well, I don’t believe this. Scientists merely try to find more complex and enriching answers other than “Goddidit”. To take the aforementioned stance is lazy because if God really did it, wouldn’t you want to know how? If there is a god, He gave us a brain for a reason. To not use it would be wasteful. Furthermore, and this is me going on a tangent, I think that people shouldn’t be afraid of trying to find things that would contradict their religion. Take for example, Darwin. I highly doubt he was hellbent on disproving creationism.

Most want to know how it was done. So placing God in the mix does not deter from a search for answers.
And it also opens the person up for any answer at all.
The person is no longer limited to searching out the godless possibilities, but can readily search for what is the most logical answer.

How many have found science assuming no God first and then trying to find answers around that premise?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I don’t believe this. Scientists merely try to find more complex and enriching answers other than “Goddidit”.

The G-d of the Gaps argument? Really? Please, someone kill me now. If we are going to have to listen to fairy tales, this one is much better.

Atheism of the Gaps.

Over the centuries people haven’t yet been able to explain how G-ds miraculous events might have occurred, so to explain the gaps in their knowledge they have denied that G-d really exists. This effect has resulted in the disappearance of Penn, Teller, Chris Angel, David Blaine, David Copperfield and The Amazing Johnathon. Though Johnathon only faded out of existence momentarily, since it doesn’t take long to figure his act out.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, I don’t believe this. Scientists merely try to find more complex and enriching answers other than “Goddidit”. To take the aforementioned stance is lazy because if God really did it, wouldn’t you want to know how? If there is a god, He gave us a brain for a reason.

How is science more complex and enriching than God? It seems to me God is tremendously complex with His aseity, omnipotence, omniscience etc. As for enriching that is a value judgement. If you dont value God learning about Him will not enrich you. Of course science cant speak at all to what is enriching as it has nothing to say in that realm.

God did indeed give us a brain and we should use it. In fact Christian scientists, philosophers and theologians have been doing so for quite some time.

It’s also been noted that concepts of gods have evolved over time. Those concepts usually place a god in places in which we have little understanding (“God of the Gaps”).

I would not say the concept of god has evolved over time firstly for the simple reason that evolved is such a charged word. But secondly because I dont know that there was any great evolution in the sense of complexity and progress (whatever that would mean with regards to God) compared to other notions. I would say that the idea of the Creator God has won out against the ridiculous ideas of paganism.

Religion has always been mixed up with superstition. Man might be less superstitious today than he was and thus seem less religious. But if you read the Bible it gave a pretty accurate description of God as most modern Christian theologians understand Him going back thousands of years. The Greek philosophers had similar ideas a thousand years later. At the same time pagan gods were popular. In the East today there is still a concept of many gods.

Our idea of God might be more refined but it is a refinement of the ancient ideas the Hebrews had revealed to them. This idea has largely won out against bad ideas. But those bad ideas are not gone at all. They still exist. And people are still superstitious. Baseball is proof of that.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;8229271:

It’s also been noted that concepts of gods have evolved over time.

I would not say the concept of god has evolved over time firstly for the simple reason that evolved is such a charged word. But secondly because I dont know that there was any great evolution in the sense of complexity and progress

In trying to break away from any associations and thoughts that may be inherited from the debate over biological evolution my statement could be refined by exchanging the word “evolved” with “have been adapted and modified”. I’m not trying to invoke thoughts of complexity and progress, but modifications through introjection, assimilation, and/or other sources of modification.

Religion has always been mixed up with superstition.

And that mixing up could be a part of an explanation for some changes in the concepts.

This idea has largely won out against bad ideas.

That would be something that I’d love to discuss, but will hold my thoughts for another thread and another day. I might take things off of subject if I discuss it here.

 

[greylorn]

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

Gee, thanks, wise and knowing guru. Ever since a truck ran over my bag of silly putty, I’ve been running around looking for little globs of nothing so that I could make my own universe. Thanks to you, oh insightful one, I shall look no further.

The truth is, I never studied Latin. Did learn some math. So, unlike you, I never got confused about the meaning of nothing or the applicability of zero in solutions to real physics problems. Why on earth would you imagine for a minute that issues which have sorely confused you in the past have ever troubled anyone else?

 

[greylorn]

I don’t think the number that have considered it is as low as you might thing. The multitude of the definitions for gods (or a single god) or the great liberty applied to adding or removing defining characteristics has come up in many Internet discussions, live debates, books, and so on.

I’ve brought up the word “ignostic” in this forum before. Ignostic goes beyond agnostic in that it also considers the varrying definitions of gods and has the view that a meaning full definition must first be reached before a discussion of whether or not he/she/it/they exists. Lots of cultures and religions have their own concept of a god, and within those cultures and religions the concept can be further fractured. Just as one could hold a debate on “Does God exists” one could also hold a debate on “Which God Exists”. (NonStamp collector made a parody of this concept in the video “The Great Debate” that touches on this and includes Hawking’s views)

It’s also been noted that concepts of gods have evolved over time. Those concepts usually place a god in places in which we have little understanding (“God of the Gaps”).

Not that it removes all of the ambiguity but if I am talking about the Christian god then I use the name “Yahweh.” When some one says “God created the universe” the statement is more vague than saying “Yahweh created the universe.” The weaker assertion from using the word “God” is more convenient when you want to include a larger audience and let them fill in the gaps with their own beliefs.

You make several excellent points. Ignostic is a cute word, and it might even apply to me, except that it is a word associated with a confusion or indecision of opinion, by its confederacy with “agnostic.” You are absolutely correct about the ambiguity of the word “God,” although here on CAF that is rarely an issue.

It is so little an issue that when I’ve initiated threads to discuss the definition of God, questioning the omniscient/omnipotent properties, they been quickly sandbagged by protesting Catholics.

I tried your Great Debate link. It reached terminal stupidity about 50 seconds in. The 'toon figures are an insult to intelligence, the audio was poor (Aussie accent?), and my patience is as short as my computer’s bandwidth, which delivers the conversation in brief snippets, so I figured that from one stupid premise I’d get to kill ten minutes waiting for equally stupid conclusions. So I killed it.

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!