Eternity and foreknowledge

[Peter_Plato]

It’s actually rather simple. The creator brought the universe into existence,in my belief… the rest is pure conjecture. If anyone has some tangible evidence…I’m wide open for it.

John

As a deist, “you make many assumptions.”

Primarily, that the paradigm of a watchmaker assembling a watch or Henry Ford “manufacturing” automobiles is the most fitting to describe what God does when he creates universes.

Would it be fitting to ask if obsolescence is a built-in feature of the universe? Is there a shelf-life or warranty? (Energized to run for 20 billion years?)

Could it be that being smitten by human technology makes you incapable of seeing beyond engineering as the only possible way that God could or does create?

It is not clear, to me at least, what possible evidence there could be to establish with any kind of certainty the manner in which God creates. We only have analogs from human endeavors to serve as speculative models. There is no more “evidence” in strictly naturalistic terms to support a deist view of creation than there is a Thomist view. However, Thomistic metaphysics are much more robust, explanatorily, than deism, which relies heavily on Occam’s slash and burn methodology.

 

[Richca]

God is eternal.
God is pure act.
If the world can be created but eternal then when did God think us up?
So God has always thought of us?
So is the very thought of us eternal?

Yes, God has known us and when we would have our existence in this world from all eternity. By one act of his intellect from eternity, God knows all things.

 

[oldcelt]

As a deist, “you make many assumptions.”

Primarily, that the paradigm of a watchmaker assembling a watch or Henry Ford “manufacturing” automobiles is the most fitting to describe what God does when he creates universes.

Would it be fitting to ask if obsolescence is a built-in feature of the universe? Is there a shelf-life or warranty? (Energized to run for 20 billion years?)

Could it be that being smitten by human technology makes you incapable of seeing beyond engineering as the only possible way that God could or does create?

It is not clear, to me at least, what possible evidence there could be to establish with any kind of certainty the manner in which God creates. We only have analogs from human endeavors to serve as speculative models. There is no more “evidence” in strictly naturalistic terms to support a deist view of creation than there is a Thomist view. However, Thomistic metaphysics are much more robust, explanatorily, than deism, which relies heavily on Occam’s slash and burn methodology.

Your understanding of Deism is very limited my friend. You are relying on the earliest Deists. I do not believe in a “watchmaker.” The god I conceive of just started it all, and his creation continues…with no need for any intervention.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your understanding of Deism is very limited my friend. You are relying on the earliest Deists. I do not believe in a “watchmaker.” The god I conceive of just started it all, and his creation continues…with no need for any intervention.

Yes. I gathered that. A watch has no need for a watchmaker to keep it ticking, either.

So, does creation go on forever, or will it “wind down” at the end? Does it require “periodic cleaning” or scheduled maintenance?

You see, here is where we likely disagree. You would surmise that a god who must intervene now and then in creation must be an inferior god, because just as a watch that has to be taken back to the shop now and then must be inherently flawed, a universe that requires ongoing attention must, likewise, be of inferior design.

This view, however, relies upon an industrial designer/product view of God and creation. Why dismiss the possibility that the universe could be more like a musical piece being played - improvised even - with time signature, duration and volume (space/time) all brought into and sustained in being ex nihilo, moment by moment?

Just as a vocalist uses voice as the means by which to create music a cappella, God could “sing” creation into being. Notice, that the actualized sound of the voice is not in any sense created “from” the being of the vocal chords producing the sound. The sound is essentially a distinct kind of entity with its own ontology. It is not as if the vocal chords had to put some little part or aspect of themselves, existentially, into the sounds produced in order to bring those sounds into being. The sounds have their own existential reality quite distinct from the existence of vocal chords.

Notice also, that music or vocals, a cappella or otherwise, are not inherently inferior - ontologically speaking - to, say, a watch or automobile, merely because music requires a sustaining cause or continued “intervention” on the part of the musician/vocalist to keep it in existence, which essentially defeats your “interventionist” critique of theism.

A “hands-off” kind of deity, which you "… conceive of [who] just started it all, … [where] his creation continues…with no need for any intervention…” is not inherently superior to the God of theists, merely for being distant and noninterventionist, despite your predilection for such a being.

 

[oldcelt]

Yes. I gathered that. A watch has no need for a watchmaker to keep it ticking, either.

So, does creation go on forever, or will it “wind down” at the end? Does it require “periodic cleaning” or scheduled maintenance?

You see, here is where we likely disagree. You would surmise that a god who must intervene now and then in creation must be an inferior god, because just as a watch that has to be taken back to the shop now and then must be inherently flawed, a universe that requires ongoing attention must, likewise, be of inferior design.

This view, however, relies upon an industrial designer/product view of God and creation. Why dismiss the possibility that the universe could be more like a musical piece being played - improvised even - with time signature, duration and volume (space/time) all brought into and sustained in being ex nihilo, moment by moment?

Just as a vocalist uses voice as the means by which to create music a cappella, God could “sing” creation into being. Notice, that the actualized sound of the voice is not in any sense created “from” the being of the vocal chords producing the sound. The sound is essentially a distinct kind of entity with its own ontology. It is not as if the vocal chords had to put some little part or aspect of themselves, existentially, into the sounds produced in order to bring those sounds into being. The sounds have their own existential reality quite distinct from the existence of vocal chords.

Notice also, that music or vocals, a cappella or otherwise, are not inherently inferior - ontologically speaking - to, say, a watch or automobile, merely because music requires a sustaining cause or continued “intervention” on the part of the musician/vocalist to keep it in existence, which essentially defeats your “interventionist” critique of theism.

A “hands-off” kind of deity, which you "… conceive of [who] just started it all, … [where] his creation continues…with no need for any intervention…” is not inherently superior to the God of theists, merely for being distant and noninterventionist, despite your predilection for such a being.

Having never claimed that a non-interventionist god is superior or inferior, I really have no answer.My belief is based on what I, as a human being , observe. At very least, I don’t have to try to contort myself to believe in miracles.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Having never claimed that a non-interventionist god is superior or inferior, I really have no answer.My belief is based on what I, as a human being , observe. At very least, I don’t have to try to contort myself to believe in miracles.

Not sure what “contortion” is required. If God creates ex nihilo, miracles would be child’s play in comparison. If creation is more akin to a musical performance than making a watch, then miracles would be mere improvised measures.

Deists require their own mental acrobatics to explain why God would care enough to create an entire universe and then “let it be” - behaviour much more fitting an absentee father than the creator God.

 

[oldcelt]

Not sure what “contortion” is required. If God creates ex nihilo, miracles would be child’s play in comparison. If creation is more akin to a musical performance than making a watch, then miracles would be mere improvised measures.

Deists require their own mental acrobatics to explain why God would care enough to create an entire universe and then “let it be” - behaviour much more fitting an absentee father than the creator God.

Yes, yes…the absentee father. The creator did not walk away. Creation is an ongoing process. We are just a result of that process…not necessarily the crowning event. The notion that the creator would pay such close attention to one tiny planet and, specifically, its human inhabitants is the pinnacle of hubris.

 

[Peter_Plato]

**

Yes, yes…the absentee father. The creator did not walk away. Creation is an ongoing process. We are just a result of that process…not necessarily the crowning event. The notion that the creator would pay such close attention to one tiny planet and, specifically, its human inhabitants is the pinnacle of hubris.

It would only be “the pinnacle of hubris” if the Creator doesn’t “pay close attention to one tiny planet” and if all the words of the prophets, the teachings of Jesus, the events of both Testaments and the commission of the Apostles are not, in fact, examples of the Creator paying close attention.

In other words, if all of these ARE examples of God paying “close attention to one tiny planet,” then it would seem the “pinnicle of hubris” to have the audacity to claim you could possibly know it wasn’t and couldn’t be the Creator “paying close attention.” That knife cuts both ways, you see.

When I read the words of Jesus or the Prophets of the Old Testament claiming to speak the word of the Creator, my response is, “Who am I to dispute such claims?” You seem quite willing to rule them out based upon your ability to judge concerning how a Creator would or wouldn’t interact with “one tiny planet.” You know this how?

It is Jesus who claims to speak for the Creator. It was the prophets who said, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” If the Creator said, “I care for this tiny planet,” on what grounds are you asserting that the Creator does not or could not do so?

 

[oldcelt]

**

It would only be “the pinnacle of hubris” if the Creator doesn’t “pay close attention to one tiny planet” and if all the words of the prophets, the teachings of Jesus, the events of both Testaments and the commission of the Apostles are not, in fact, examples of the Creator paying close attention.

In other words, if all of these ARE examples of God paying “close attention to one tiny planet,” then it would seem the “pinnicle of hubris” to have the audacity to claim you could possibly know it wasn’t and couldn’t be the Creator “paying close attention.” That knife cuts both ways, you see.

When I read the words of Jesus or the Prophets of the Old Testament claiming to speak the word of the Creator, my response is, “Who am I to dispute such claims?” You seem quite willing to rule them out based upon your ability to judge concerning how a Creator would or wouldn’t interact with “one tiny planet.” You know this how?

It is Jesus who claims to speak for the Creator. It was the prophets who said, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” If the Creator said, “I care for this tiny planet,” on what grounds are you asserting that the Creator does not or could not do so?

In other words, it all comes down to what and whom you find to be the most reasonable…doesn’t it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

In other words, it all comes down to what and whom you find to be the most reasonable…doesn’t it?

The problem with reason is that most “reasonable” agents tend to accept only those premises which accord with the conclusions they are prepared to accept. Their “foresight” allows them to see ahead to what conclusions inevitably follow if they accept particular premises and that same foresight leads to either denying or disregarding the premises which would take them where they would not go. The truth is not given full reign precisely because these “reasonable” people are quite capable of seeing where accepting the more “dangerous” premises would take them if they were to follow without compromise.

This is the reason Jesus said, “Sell all you have and come follow me.”

In the end the reasonableness of the reasons for doing so will be seen, but not in the interim since the more “reasonable” agents are not prepared to fully accept the truth of the way things are rather than the way they want things to be.

Which is why relativism and the subjective accoutrements of “reasonableness” are endorsed so fully today. This makes timidity and narcissism appear acceptable by engulfing both with the turbid smoke of what passes for “justification” and “reasonableness.”

 

[oldcelt]

The problem with reason is that most “reasonable” agents tend to accept only those premises which accord with the conclusions they are prepared to accept. Their “foresight” allows them to see ahead to what conclusions inevitably follow if they accept particular premises and that same foresight leads to either denying or disregarding the premises which would take them where they would not go. The truth is not given full reign precisely because these “reasonable” people are quite capable of seeing where accepting the more “dangerous” premises would take them if they were to follow without compromise.

This is the reason Jesus said, “Sell all you have and come follow me.”

In the end the reasonableness of the reasons for doing so will be seen, but not in the interim since the more “reasonable” agents are not prepared to fully accept the truth of the way things are rather than the way they want things to be.

Which is why relativism and the subjective accoutrements of “reasonableness” are endorsed so fully today. This makes timidity and narcissism appear acceptable by engulfing both with the turbid smoke of what passes for “justification” and “reasonableness.”

All of us believe that our concept of “reality” is reasonable, else we wouldn’t believe it. Observation and reason are, perhaps, our only tools in an effort to explain the world that exists. That we arrive at different conclusions is no surprise to me, particularly when one factors in the length of observation.
Question for you: Do you think that if the various organized religions of the world did not begin indoctrination in childhood that many would actually arrive at the particular beliefs of that faith on their own?