Do you belive other gods exist?

[Ecclesiaticus_S]

Lokadottir is roughly Old Norse for Loki’s daughter. So I am in fact female.

You have got a be kidding me

 

[Lokadottir]

An infinite being is plausible because the universe needs a first mover.

The universe cannot be infinite for obvious reasons of entropy and a few other things (which I am sure I need not explain) so there must be SOMETHING that started it. Something cannot come from nothing.

But why does an infinite being make more sense than an infinite universe? If God can merely be, why not the universe?

 

[Kallisto]

Does the Hellenistc faith have doctrine? Or is it just mysticism?

…I think that’s why there can’t be any dialogue here… There’s nothing to discuss.

More precisely, nothing can be discussed when individuals are too mired in their own doctrine to see beyond it.

 

[Lokadottir]

You have got a be kidding me

That I’m female or the user name I chose?

 

[Ecclesiaticus_S]

More precisely, nothing can be discussed when individuals are too mired in their own doctrine to see beyond it.

Sorry love, but we Christians do not degrade our religion to mere doctrine; it is in fact a very way of life.

 

[TEPO]

More precisely, nothing can be discussed when individuals are too mired in their own doctrine to see beyond it.

That’s true too I guess. I’m not that way though. I think there’s a lot more involved than what’s found in Church doctrines.

 

[Ecclesiaticus_S]

That I’m female or the user name I chose?

Ja it was a joke.

But anyway i was perhaps somewhat taken aback you were a woman instead but never matter.

 

[Lokadottir]

That’s true too I guess. I’m not that way though. I think there’s a lot more involved than what’s found in Church doctrines.

And the problem is people like Ecclesiaticus directly above your post. Its hard to share when you can’t even achieve basic rescpect.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am familiar with this argument. I love Thomas Aquinas. However I find his argument for monotheism lacking. Why is an infinite being more plausible than an infinite universe. I’d no sooner approach any one philosophy as a definitive truth than I would a scientific theory.

Several reasons:

1. The universe (at least not the space time matter energy continuum we know) isn’t infinite. It had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago.
2. An actual infinite is impossible so temporal infinity (back through past time) is impossible. The universe could not have always existed (temporally speaking) for an infinite past time.
3. God is not infinite in any sequential or causal sense. There is no past time with God. He is eternal (not constrained by time or space), immaterial, and the fullness of Being or Existence Itself (Actus Purus.)

What would constitute a definitive proof if this is not possible through philosophy or science?

What other means, then? Direct intuition? Mysticism? Subjective certainty?

How could you be certain of any of those?

 

[Lokadottir]

Ja it was a joke.

But anyway i was perhaps somewhat taken aback you were a woman instead but never matter.

… why were you taken aback?
and what was a joke?

 

[dshix]

But why does an infinite being make more sense than an infinite universe? If God can merely be, why not the universe?

I guess I do have to explain it.

If the universe began an infinite time ago, the natural law of nature, entropy, would have also taken infinite effect an infinite time ago. Let me put this into perspective.

A star, over billions of years, burns up all of its hydrogen through fusion. This fused hydrogen becomes helium, and then the helium atoms fuse, and so on.

This is the star’s power source; it fuses atoms and gains more energy to stay intact via the strong force.

Eventually, however, the star reaches iron. When it starts fusing iron, it does not gain energy, but loses it (research it if you want the reason for this).

This causes the gravity of the star to destroy it, and you get a supernova (if the star is big enough). In the process of supernova, all the other elements in our universe are fused, and that’s where we get them.

Over a very, very VERY long time, the matter from supernova joins or becomes other stars, and the cycle repeats.

(All of that DID have a point. )

Now, if this cycle repeated over and over and over and over and over again, INFINITELY, there would be no more ordered energy left in the universe. All matter would be heavy matter, and stars would all have burned out, etc.

That is obviously not the case, so the entropy could not have started an infinitely long time ago. But, you might ask, what if the universe is infinite and the Big Bang just happened a limited time ago?

The reason is because there is no logical reason why the Big Bang did not happen an infinite time ago. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, there is NO reason why the Big Bang didn’t happen an infinite amount of time ago either.

And all of that doesn’t explain why the Big Bang happened at all.

^This was all a very verbose version of the answer (since I sense you might understand that better).

 

[Ecclesiaticus_S]

… why were you taken aback?
and what was a joke?

I suspected you to perhaps be a male, but also thought you were not

 

[Lokadottir]

I guess I do have to explain it.

If the universe began an infinite time ago, the natural law of nature, entropy, would have also taken infinite effect an infinite time ago. Let me put this into perspective.

A star, over billions of years, burns up all of its hydrogen through fusion. This fused hydrogen becomes helium, and then the helium atoms fuse, and so on.

This is the star’s power source; it fuses atoms and gains more energy to stay intact via the strong force.

Eventually, however, the star reaches iron. When it starts fusing iron, it does not gain energy, but loses it (research it if you want the reason for this).

This causes the gravity of the star to destroy it, and you get a supernova (if the star is big enough). In the process of supernova, all the other elements in our universe are fused, and that’s where we get them.

Over a very, very VERY long time, the matter from supernova joins or becomes other stars, and the cycle repeats.

(All of that DID have a point. )

Now, if this cycle repeated over and over and over and over and over again, INFINITELY, there would be no more ordered energy left in the universe. All matter would be heavy matter, and stars would all have burned out, etc.

That is obviously not the case, so the entropy could not have started an infinitely long time ago. But, you might ask, what if the universe is infinite and the Big Bang just happened a limited time ago?

The reason is because there is no logical reason why the Big Bang did not happen an infinite time ago. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, there is NO reason why the Big Bang didn’t happen an infinite amount of time ago either.

And all of that doesn’t explain why the Big Bang happened at all.

I don’t think its the only answer. Plenty of people more intelligent than me have offered there objections.

 

[Lokadottir]

I suspected you to perhaps be a male, but also thought you were not

whelp I’m lost too!

 

[dshix]

I don’t think its the only answer. Plenty of people more intelligent than me have offered there objections.

You haven’t provided an answer for what could have caused the Big Bang; I have.

Please enlighten us as to what you think.

 

[Ecclesiaticus_S]

whelp I’m lost too!

How dare you say that

 

[Contarini]

But why does an infinite being make more sense than an infinite universe? If God can merely be, why not the universe?

Because God (on the Thomistic hypothesis) is pure Being itself. God is “merely being” by definition.

Another way to put it would be: “the only thing that can merely be is Mere Being.” And this “Mere Being” we call God.

From there on out it’s all about attributes and revelation.

Edwin

 

[Cider]

Reigious Jews don’t worship “YHWH” per se–they worship “HaShem” or “The Holy One, Praised Be He” or “The Master of the Universe.” True, all of these are terms for the one who revealed Himself to the ancient Hebrews as “YHWH.” But my point is that no devout Jew (except maybe a very liberal/postmodern one) would say that they simply worship a tribal god. A non-Orthodox Jew, with historical sensibilities, might grant that as originally understood by the Hebrews YHWH was a tribal god.

The belief that “Jesus is the tribal god of the Christians” seems patently irrational to me, if it really implies that there is a divine being called “Jesus” who somehow conned a billion people into believing things about Him that weren’t true. This seems to violate Ockham’s razor at every level, and it is certainly in no sense a “respectful” view.

Edwin

Are you or were you ever Jewish? I was before I become Catholic and I’m married to Jew. So thanks for telling me what Jews think and believe.

 

[tonyfish58]

That’s true too I guess. I’m not that way though. I think there’s a lot more involved than what’s found in Church doctrines.

An open mind is a good thing to have. To question what one believes means one is still moving forward

We must show love to all. God created us all and showers His bounty upon us all. How much we drink is our choice.

Can one truly Love His enemies. Yes! But there are very few that can put this entirely into practice, may God help us all achieve it.

Regards Tony

 

[Contarini]

Are you or were you ever Jewish? I was before I become Catholic and I’m married to Jew. So thanks for telling me what Jews think and believe.

Well, I’ve not met any devout, practicing Jews who said they worshiped a tribal deity.

Are you telling me that you worshiped a tribal deity? That that’s how you thought about it? And that’s how your spouse still thinks about it?

I know that the Maimonidean tradition has fallen into disfavor thanks so the work of folks like Heschel, but I wouldn’t describe Heschel’s view of God as a “tribal deity” either.

Edwin