God and Time

[JDaniel]

Here’s the biggest question I have:
Why does the necessary Being have to be God?

RF:

Actually, we call the Necessary Being “God.” We could call the Necessary Being, the Prime Mover, and the First Cause by any name we want. But, the Church fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, et al, all referred to Him as “God.” So, why not?

Can’t we just say the universe was created, but that is all we know?

Yes we can. But, let’s say that you got a new car. Is that all you might need to know? Might whether it is a stick shift or an automatic be important? Might whether it had two doors or four doors be important to know? How about whether it ran on regular gasoline of diesel - would that be important? You would want to know more than just that it is a car, wouldn’t you. Likewise, men and women want to know as much about our cosmos as we can. So, we ask and learn.

How can we (aside from citing the infinity thing) point out, with certainty, that God is actually responsible for our world?

From a couple of concepts: first, when the universe was created, there was nothing else. So, if you had an inquiring mind you might want to know how it poofed into existence. Second, from science we find that it had a beginning. That means that it is more than likely “finite.” It had a beginning and it will have an end. If that is so, then there must have been something else, invisible to our instruments, that existed and made the universe. Third, so far as we know - and so far as we may ever be able to find out - there are no other planets capable of sustaining life. Why? How? And so on and on.

Do you understand what I mean? Like, in my Apologetics book, they were happy to say “There is a world, it must have been created, it needed an infinite Creator, that is God.” But why, and how did we prove that?

Think of it this way: to the best of our knowledge, no lesser being could have created a universe where there was nothing before. So, whoever, or whatever, created this universe had to have very extraordinary powers and intelligence. In other words, it was more than likely not merely a couple of lab-coated giants - who are also invisible to us. Let’s say that you wished to create the cell phone. Within you, then, would have be very detailed notions of its complete design and how it will operate. Now the cell phone is not building you. You are building it. The universe did not create God, God created the universe. We back into the proof that God created the universe, from a detailed ruling-out of everything else.

I’ve got to go to bed now. So, I’ll look for you tomorrow. Good night, RF.

God bless,
jd

 

[norain]

Here’s the biggest question I have:
Why does the necessary Being have to be God? Can’t we just say the universe was created, but that is all we know? How can we (aside from citing the infinity thing) point out, with certantity, that God is actually responsible for our world? Do you understand what I mean? Like, in my Apologetics book, they were happy to say “There is a world, it must have been created, it needed an infinite Creator, that is God.” But why, and how did we prove that?

The necessary being does not have to be “God”. We could call it by any name, maybe just “necessary being”. Why is it important to know if there is such an entity? Well, what if you walk into your garage one day and found a new car in there, not knowing anything about what cars are all about?

You can do one or both of two things. You can pick the car piece by piece and study it in a lab to find out. You can also call up the car’s creator, or look him up and see what the car is for by understanding the creator’s motives.

The first method is science.
The second is religion and philosophy.

Both are important.

We have reality. We want to know how it works, why it works, and what purpose it has. We want to know why we are here.

 

[ReachingFaith]

how do we know the necessary being is who we say it is? I can’t say that in a more direct way.

 

[norain]

how do we know the necessary being is who we say it is? I can’t say that in a more direct way.

We don’t. We take a few basic postulates, such as necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, then we basically cross our fingers.

Whether God is benevolent and fair is not necessary, but I think he is. I not only wish that, but I think he truly is, and I try to be as objective about that as possible.

 

[empther]

JDaniel has been doing a really terrific job on this thread!
A couple of other contributors are also doing great job.
For once, I find myself unable to add anything. I’m speechless.

Of course, a couple of atheists have jumped in trying to cloud the issue. :banghead:
The only way they can do this is to ignore points made by JDaniel and the others.

I urge Reaching Faith to ignore the atheists. They have nothing to offer anybody. They’re empty shells.

 

[ReachingFaith]

We don’t. We take a few basic postulates, such as necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, then we basically cross our fingers.

Whether God is benevolent and fair is not necessary, but I think he is. I not only wish that, but I think he truly is, and I try to be as objective about that as possible.

Then we cross our fingers??? i would like to insert a “wth?” (heck) here. I am not going to live my life with my “fingers crossed”, hoping that maybe I’ll find out that there is something else.

 

[ReachingFaith]

JDaniel has been doing a really terrific job on this thread!
A couple of other contributors are also doing great job.
For once, I find myself unable to add anything. I’m speechless.

Of course, a couple of atheists have jumped in trying to cloud the issue. :banghead:
The only way they can do this is to ignore points made by JDaniel and the others.

I urge Reaching Faith to ignore the atheists. They have nothing to offer anybody. They’re empty shells.

I wouldn’t say that about all atheists. Aren’t we all trying to find truth? Instead of writing people off as empty shells, we can be open to helping them learn.
I’m speechless too. Because I have just read a post encouraging me to “cross my fingers.” yikes.
JDaniel, I love you (lol) but I don’t understand you. your posts are very well written, but I can’t dechiper alot of what you say, so I end up shaking my head even more. Try to dumb it down for me. You know how I am…loads of logic and easy words. Like a picture book!

 

[empther]

I wouldn’t say that about all atheists. Aren’t we all trying to find truth?

No.
There are some atheists on these forums who consistently ignore very good points made by believers in order to confuse the issue. Happens all the time.

 

[JDaniel]

I presume you are speaking of the Big Bang, with it’s begining being coterminous with the beginning of matter, space, and time.

That’s plausible. One might say that the Universe began with the singularity we call the Big Bang. Perhaps that was the first instant of creation.

But philosophically and theologically, I think, there is nothing inherently impossible about a universe in which time extends infinitely into the past and into the future. Such a universe would have no temporal beginning, but it would still need a Creator.

Jim:

Why?

We do know of actual mathematical infinities, after all. The series of whole numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., is infinite in both directions, negative and positive.

Still, I do like the idea of the Big Bang as a temporal beginning point.

An infinite real number line is imaginary (not real), like all of mathematics. At the end of it, in either direction, not only can one, or more, real numbers can be added, or subtracted, but also, the word “infinite” has as a referent, indeterminacy. So, where is the stopping point? With the number eight, the stopping point is that unit that we call “eight,” which comes after the seventh unit, and before the ninth unit. If “infinity” is an actual number, what number comes before it, and what number comes after it?

St. Thomas showed that there are two sorts of “infinity.” The imaginary, so-called, “actual infinity,” which cannot be terminated in either direction, and the “potential infinity,” which, at any stopping point, is only finite. But, since it is additive and continuously ongoing, can be called, “potential infinity.” IOW, how do we define an indeterminate precisely? That’s like trying to define a real, moving cloud!

God bless,
jd

 

[ReapReason]

We do know of actual mathematical infinities, after all. The series of whole niumbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., is infinite in both directions, negative and positive.

The question of actual infinities is not a mathematical question that can be answered purely with reference to mathematical concepts. Its a metaphysical question.

You are confusing mathematical concepts with actual beings. Mathematics can be used to describe quantity, but it is not always directly describing actual quantities, and neither can it be used to describe essence. There is no “being” that is essentially -1. In fact, in terms of objective things, there is no actual time state that is negative by nature. There is no point in time that can be objectively, essentially, and quantitatively described as zero from which positive and negative quantities extend into past and future.

The concept becomes meaningless when applied in a metaphysical context.
An ignorance of Context and how it effects concepts in terms of how they apply to a given subject is the issue that leads to error in philosophy and science.

When dealing with actual beings in time, you only have ontological numbers which are either quantified in terms of that which is a holistic sum of numbers or that which is an indivisible number. In any case you are always adding 1 to 1, not -2 to -1.

 

[norain]

Then we cross our fingers??? i would like to insert a “wth?” (heck) here. I am not going to live my life with my “fingers crossed”, hoping that maybe I’ll find out that there is something else.

What I meant by cross our fingers is that we can only hope to find the truth we hope to see. We should not accept the world only as the world we hope it would be, but the world it truly is.

 

[ReachingFaith]

What I meant by cross our fingers is that we can only hope to find the truth we hope to see. We should not accept the world only as the world we hope it would be, but the world it truly is.

I do not understand at all. What are you saying? That Catholicism isn’t a reality? That I can hope but that I can’t be sure?

 

[ReachingFaith]

No.
There are some atheists on these forums who consistently ignore very good points made by believers in order to confuse the issue. Happens all the time.

Or, possibly, they just don’t understand. They don’t see it as ignoring, they see us as ignoring the truth they are offering. Think of it that way. They seem objectionable b/c they have questions and opinions…but so do I.

 

[JDaniel]

how do we know the necessary being is who we say it is? I can’t say that in a more direct way.

RF:

Hi.

We know that the Necessary Being is who we say it is from a preponderance of logical and a posteriori considerations. To begin with, consider this Universe in its entirety. Billions and billions of galaxies and stars, and possibly dark energy of extraordinary vastness, and dark matter. This Necessary Being sustains all of this throughout all of Time. Consider also, the billions of life-varieties on Earth. This same Being sustains all of them throughout time as well.

Now, someone could say, “Why can’t there be two of these Necessary Beings?” Can we envision problems with such a scenario? Is one of them sustaining the other? Are they both sustaining each other? Which one is really God? Which one “Creates?” Remember, Creation, although a singular event, is not a one-and-only event. Either ALL of CREATION blasts into existence at one instant, or it is immersed in Time, for us, and rolled-out successionaly. Being the finite creatures that we are, we couldn’t handle an instantaneous blasting into existence of EVERYTHING.

Consider God’s primary attributes: Infinite, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omni-benevolence, Immutability, Eternality, Perfection, and so forth. A few of them could not co-exist and would be impossible to share. For example, how would two, or more, entities share “infinity?” If there were more than one, how would “perfection” be attributed? IOW, if they had shared duties, then neither of them is really Perfect, right? If we said that they both have the same attributes and duties, then one would have to withhold while the other exercised His or Her abilities.

There are many other considerations involved in the understanding that God must be a non-composite unity. St. Thomas has written hundreds of pages on this subject. We can only give you these condensed versions in this type of setting. I hope you understand and will, over time, continue with your research.

God bless you in your journey,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

What I meant by cross our fingers is that we can only hope to find the truth we hope to see. We should not accept the world only as the world we hope it would be, but the world it truly is.

Norain:

You can say that again!

But, do we ever do that?

God bless,
jd

 

[norain]

I do not understand at all. What are you saying? That Catholicism isn’t a reality? That I can hope but that I can’t be sure?

Catholicism (or any faith for that matter) should describe the world how it truly is, how it got there, and what can come of it for the future.

If what you see in your church does not help you live your life, why bother?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was thinking of this in another thread, and I decided to ask you all (Polite help, please!)

God always was, correct? But how can that be? He is the Creator of everything, but where did He come from? Did He create Himself? And what about the other parts of Him, Son and holy Ghost…where did they all come from?

As for the world, how did God make everything out of nothing? How can you do that? How can we prove that?
I hope you can help me…please try to answer with respect.

Contrary to what some on this thread suggest, we can reason to the existence of a creator Being that has many of the qualities of the God of Christianity. And we can be certain of being correct, certainly more correct than to say such a Being does not exist. I urge you to read Part 1 of the Summa Theologiae. newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

Once you see what such a Being is it is perfectly reasonable that such a Being has been Revealing Himself to humanity for the last 5,000 years or so. In other words, Revelation is perfectly reasonable.

No, God does not have to have a cause. The Creatures we know have to have a cause because they are composed of matter and form. But their cause is a Being whose essence is Pure Actuality or Pure Existence that contains in its Supreme Simplicity absolute Perfection of every kind imaginable, including Intellect, Will, Love, etc. and who is a Personal Being. Being Pure Actuality He can have no cause because he has no potential to be anything else and being Pure Actuality there can be nothing else that could create Him - He has it all, He has all actuality, He lacks no Perfection.

So it is absolutely certain that this Being - the First Cause of Everything else - is the Christian God. You can be as certain of that as you are of your own existence.

P.S. Get " Aquinas " by Edward Feser.

 

[empther]

Reaching Faith wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
No.
There are some atheists on these forums who consistently ignore very good points made by believers in order to confuse the issue. Happens all the time.

Or, possibly, they just don’t understand. They don’t see it as ignoring, they see us as ignoring the truth they are offering. Think of it that way. They seem objectionable b/c they have questions and opinions…but so do I.

All right, Reaching Faith. I’ll give you a specific example of how the atheists completely ignore very good points of the believers.

Jdaniel, in post # 9, said

We believe that God did not have a beginning. If He had a beginning then something else must have made Him come to be. If something else brought Him into being, then that is God - not the entity we first thought was God. We have already taken this regress back to the postulation of an infinite regress - which cannot be.

Jdaniel made several very good points in this paragraph. Examine what Jdaniel wrote very carefully.
Now, watch how it is all ignored, with a completely unfounded and gratuitous statement replacing his very good points.

Greylorn, in post # 15, said

God came into being from a collision between dark energy and a different kind of substance, aeon.

God did not make everything from nothing. He made it from dark energy.

Do you see how Greylorn completely ignores the many very good points JDaniel made and goes off on some theory about how God "came into being:,
a theory nobody else has ever claimed,
and which of course ignores what JDaniel said in the second and third sentences of the quote I just gave you?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I do not understand at all. What are you saying? That Catholicism isn’t a reality? That I can hope but that I can’t be sure?

Catholicism is a definite and true reality, next to the existence of God and your own existence it is the most important reality. Why, because it is the path for moral and sane living and the instrument of your salvation. How do we know? There is no meaningful alternative for one. Secondly, the voice of your conscience tells you it is so. Are there doubters? Indeed, more and more each day apparently. That doesn’t matter at all, you don’t save your soul by consensus vote. Christ told us, “… he who persevers to the end will be saved…”

How do you persever? First, educate yourself on the faith as much as you can ( at the very least you have to read and meditate on the Catechism). Secondly fulfilly your religious duties - Mass, sacraments, daily prayer and meditation and spiritual reading ( certainly some each day from the Scriptures). Turn off the noise, perhaps avoiding debates here and elsewhere. What does it prove after all? A huge distraction at the very least. And a possible danger to faith because there all sorts of clever people here who care nothing for your faith and would love to see you loose it - a feather in their cap you see. So be faithful and be very, very wary.

 

[Portofino]

Howdy, there, empther (nice moniker, reminds me of “empathy” or “empathic”).

I, personally, am speaking from the position of an agnostic. I don’t dogmatically assert that God does not exist, but – at the same time – I have doubts that the existence of that God can be proven rationally or empirically.

I’ve read post #9 and I can honestly say that – from the perspective of a good faith skeptic, such as I try to be – it appears to be begging the question; in other words, it implicitly assumes what it is setting out to prove. Sentences that appear to be declarative in nature, as opposed to proofs, are highlighted by me in bold. Sentences that constitute an actual premise – but ones that I believe are asserted, rather than proven – are in red.

From Post #9: "God always existed. We do not say that He came from Nothing, only that the Universe came to be where there was nothing, but God always was (is and will be). Nothing can bring itself into being and nothing can pre-exist itself in order to bring itself into being

[According to] our faith and our dialectical inquiry, we believe that God did not have a beginning. If He had a beginning then something else must have made Him come to be. If something else brought Him into being, then that is God - not the entity that we first thought was God. We have already taken this regress back to the postulation of an infinite regress - which cannot be…"

What the bold portions read to me as – namely, as someone who does not have the faith of a Christian – “God always existed because it is in God’s nature to have always existed. There can be nothing before God because, according to the definitions that we as Christians have always given of God, nothing can have preceded God.”

What the first red sentence reads to me as: an open question and an admitted paradox, but not a question which readily admits of an answer. It remains an unanswered question, a mystery (something we do not yet understand) – “what was before the beginning?”; yet the concept of God is a concept that was created precisely to solve this paradox. For this reason, it seems like a *deus ex machine *of logic – a concept whose very purpose was to resolve this paradox, by saying, “the paradox is resolved,” because God is a being whose nature does not admit of asking the question, “what came before God?”

What the second red sentence reads to me as: another mystery, another logical paradox. Ultimately, an unanswered question. From my perspective, to posit God as the resolution of this paradox – a being whose very definition is not to be subject to this paradox – is too easy a solution, since the concept was conceived of for this very purpose.

I don’t deny that the logic of positing the existence of God as a resolution of this paradox is compelling – powerful, in its way – but it’s unclear to me what part my emotions would play in saying, “yes, I feel convinced.” Feeling convinced, feeling persuaded would always be an element there. If something were strictly provable, one would not need to feel persuaded. Proving something “beyond a reasonable doubt”, on the other hand – which is still saying a lot – does require a “feeling” of being persuaded. In contrast, the proposition 7 + 3 = 10, does not required that feeling of being convinced or persuaded; it is truly incontrovertible, logically speaking. Even to say, “I cannot conceive of x not being true” is not necessarily proof; it can be telling me more about myself, than about what I am trying to prove.