God cannot explain the origin of life

[rossum]

The sum total might be zero, but that doesn’t mean that there is nothing there!

Agreed. There is zero energy, which solves the problem of where the initial energy came from. Having zero total energy does not mean that there isn’t anything at all.

ATE seems an unhelpful concept.

I find the ATE (All That Exists) universe useful in philosophical discussions. It is especially helpful in discussions of any existing god(s). People have a tendency to make exceptions for their gods. The ATE universe makes that ore difficult to do. To my mind a universe that does not include everything is not worthy of the name “universe” because it is not universally inclusive. The universal set U includes everything; similarly the philosophical universe.

I would suggest, in its place, “All Created Entities” (ACE).

That is a useful subset of the universe, but it is not the universe.

ATE is unhelpful since it includes both “all that was created” and “all that is uncreated”.

Why is that unhelpful? If there is one or more eternal uncreated existing entities, then the ATE universe is also eternal and uncreated. I assume that you do not deny the possibility of an uncreated eternal entity. If such an entity exists, then any set that includes that entity is also eternal and uncreated: {things which are omnipotent} or {things which are omniscient} for example.

In this case there are many uncreated and uncreated sets. The ATE universe is just one such set: {∀ X: ∃ X}.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Agreed. There is zero energy, which solves the problem of where the initial energy came from.

No; there is zero total energy. Big difference.

In fact, zero total energy still leads to the question “how did something (negative something and positive something, or if you prefer, something and anti-something) come into existence in the first place?”

I find the ATE (All That Exists) universe useful in philosophical discussions.

Except that in doing so, you’re creating a non-standard definition for “universe.” The universe is all that exists within the confines of time and space.

It is especially helpful in discussions of any existing god(s).

This is why it’s unhelpful… to wit:

People have a tendency to make exceptions for their gods.

Does God exist in time and space? If not, then He exists in addition to (or at least, outside the bounds of) the universe.

This isn’t an ‘exception’; it’s a clarification that helps us understand the problem more clearly. On the other hand, forcing a definition which requires us to lump God in with His creation obfuscates…

The ATE universe makes that ore difficult to do.

Right – because it clouds the issue at hand!

To my mind a universe that does not include everything is not worthy of the name “universe” because it is not universally inclusive. The universal set U includes everything; similarly the philosophical universe.

The universal set creates an untenable paradox; surely you know this, right? In fact, in a way of looking at things, it creates exactly the logical inconsistency that you’re proposing, by lumping God in with the universe He created! And so, sadly, as it turns out, your notion of a universal set that includes its creator does not hold up – either in math or philosophy.

Why is that unhelpful? If there is one or more eternal uncreated existing entities, then the ATE universe is also eternal and uncreated.

This is less helpful than you seem to think: you’ve created a disjunction of mutually-exclusive sets – God (the sole member of ‘eternal and uncreated’) and creation (or, what most folks mean when they use the term ‘universe’ – all the members of ‘created’).

I assume that you do not deny the possibility of an uncreated eternal entity.

Of course not: God. As a singleton member of that set.

If such an entity exists, then any set that includes that entity is also eternal and uncreated: {things which are omnipotent} or {things which are omniscient} for example.

In this case there are many uncreated and uncreated sets.

Not necessarily: you’re describing the same set, just with alternate descriptions. The set of ‘uncreated and eternal’ is equivalent to the set ‘omnipotent’ is equivalent to the set ‘omniscient’ – they’re all descriptions of a particular set that contains one member: God.

Incidentally, since we’ve devolved into set theory, it’s simple to see why this set can only contain one member: to take one such example, the set ‘omnipotent’ can only exist if it has only one member – that is, if there are two members, they cannot be mutually all-powerful. Moreover, if God is included in your ‘universe’, then there exists a set in which God is not greater than all members of the set. So: paradox. Either God exists (outside the set) or He exists (in the set). “in the set” leads to paradox (he’s both omnipotent and not omnipotent). Therefore, God must exist outside the set ‘universe’, and the definition must be ‘all created things.’

The ATE universe is just one such set: {∀ X: ∃ X}.

… the definition of which leads to unworkable paradoxes, which is why we must conclude that ‘ATE universe’ does not exist (and, ultimately, is unhelpful as a construct).

 

[Wesrock]

A fluctuation in the zero energy state of the continuum.

If there is a continuum around to even have a fluctuation, that’s not nothing, and such a continuum would still be insufficient to be the ontological cause of its own existence, eternal or not.

 

[rossum]

In fact, zero total energy still leads to the question “how did something (negative something and positive something, or if you prefer, something and anti-something) come into existence in the first place?”

The short answer is quantum mechanics. A lot of very strange things can happen at quantum scales over very short times. Given Heisenberg uncertainty, a zero-energy fluctuation could exist for an infinite time. A very-close-to-zero-energy fluctuation could exist for a very long time.

Except that in doing so, you’re creating a non-standard definition for “universe.” The universe is all that exists within the confines of time and space.

The material universe of science is a smaller universe than the one we are discussing. Angels and devils are part of your “all that is created” universe, but not part of the STEM universe of science. There is more than one definition of “universe”. I prefer to be explicit about which definition I am using, to save confusion and avoid equivocation.

This isn’t an ‘exception’; it’s a clarification that helps us understand the problem more clearly. On the other hand, forcing a definition which requires us to lump God in with His creation obfuscates…

I find that some people are al too ready to make an unjustified exception for God. Such exceptions need to be justified. If God is outside the created universe, then He cannot be omnipresent and cannot act inside the created universe. That which is outside cannot be inside. At the very least you will have to split your God into two parts: the part outside and the part inside. I agree that such expressions are common in these discussions, but that does not make them justified. One of the well-developed lines of argument in Buddhism is to examine the opponents arguments for logical flaws. The “God is outside space and time” suggestion is one that bears a lot of further discussion. Is Jesus God? Was Jesus inside or outside space and time?

The universal set creates an untenable paradox; surely you know this, right? In fact, in a way of looking at things, it creates exactly the logical inconsistency that you’re proposing, by lumping God in with the universe He created!

There is not paradox. Does God exist: yes or no? Does God’s creation exist: yes or no? The only paradoxical answer to those two questions is no, yes. The other three combinations are all non-paradoxical.

And so, sadly, as it turns out, your notion of a universal set that includes its creator does not hold up – either in math or philosophy.

No, the ATE universe does not include its creator, because it has no creator. It contains an uncreated entity: God, and so the set is not created either. As well as the uncreated entity it also contains some created entities as well. The ATE universe is eternal and uncreated, given the existence of the Abrahamic God (or similar).

This is less helpful than you seem to think: you’ve created a disjunction of mutually-exclusive sets – God (the sole member of ‘eternal and uncreated’) and creation (or, what most folks mean when they use the term ‘universe’ – all the members of ‘created’).

The material universe is also a disjunction of mutually exclusive sets: ordinary matter and dark matter; charged particles and uncharged particles; living things and non-living things. Consider the set: “non-human beings mentioned in the Bible”; does that set contain God, along with various angels, devils, Chemosh etc? Your argument does not hold water.

Not necessarily: you’re describing the same set, just with alternate descriptions. The set of ‘uncreated and eternal’ is equivalent to the set ‘omnipotent’ is equivalent to the set ‘omniscient’ – they’re all descriptions of a particular set that contains one member: God.

How do you know that? What proof do you have the there is not another omniscient entity in the universe? The existence of one omniscient being does not preclude the existence of a second omniscient being. Knowledge can be duplicated and copied, it is not confined to a single entity. Does the Spirit know all that the Father knows or must it know less?

rossum

 

[MalachiM]

This seems to be the right place to post my question. Do many Catholics, both priests and lay persons, draw a line between what the holy bible teaches and what secular logic dictates?

I believe what I read in the holy bible and what I learned in the church growing up. If anything is proven to exist or discovered to have come into existence by science, then I simply believe that science is discovering the manner in which God chose to create it. I assumed, for the most part, this was the consensus of the church.

This is a question born of curiosity, someone else’s lack of faith will not belittle my own.

God bless

 

[Tomdstone]

Therefore, God must exist outside the set ‘universe’, .

That is wrong because the Bible tells us that God was walking around in a garden on earth, i.e., in the universe of spacetime.

The “God is outside space and time” suggestion is one that bears a lot of further discussion.

God was on earth and in spacetime thousands of years before Jesus according to Holy Scripture.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . God was on earth and in spacetime thousands of years before Jesus according to Holy Scripture.

God, transcendent, existing in His eternal now, encompassing all creation, is and has always been with us, who exist in space and time, as our Father, our Creator who is Love itself.

 

[magnet]

That is wrong because the Bible tells us that God was walking around in a garden on earth, i.e., in the universe of spacetime.

God was on earth and in spacetime thousands of years before Jesus according to Holy Scripture.

Since the Trinity conceptualizes God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one and the same, then the conclusion is that Jesus was in the Garden of Eden. If that is so, why do we say that Jesus was born in 4 BCE?

 

[Tomdstone]

Since the Trinity conceptualizes God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one and the same, then the conclusion is that Jesus was in the Garden of Eden. If that is so, why do we say that Jesus was born in 4 BCE?

Because he was born as a human child from Mary in that year. Many people celebrate the birth of Jesus on Christmas Day, December 25.

 

[Aloysium]

Because he was born as a human child from Mary in that year. Many people celebrate the birth of Jesus on Christmas Day, December 25.

Interestingly someone did some calculating based on the astrological meanings found in various places in the Bible and it appears that the 25th of year zero was the date that the Magi brought their gifts to the child Jesus - the first Christmas. I’m not prepared to discuss this. I only wanted to add that every once in a while, God gives us a wink.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Therefore, God must exist outside the set ‘universe’

That is wrong because the Bible tells us that God was walking around in a garden on earth, i.e., in the universe of spacetime.

The fact that God exists outside of spacetime does not preclude that, as the creator of spacetime, He may appear within it. In fact, since He is both creator and omnipotent God, the suggestion that He may not appear (and ‘walk around’) within His creation is illogical. However, the assertion that the creator of spacetime must exist within it is, in fact, patently absurd.

 

[Gorgias]

The short answer is quantum mechanics. A lot of very strange things can happen at quantum scales over very short times.

Fair enough. But, these ‘strange things’ require pre-existent strata and energy. We cannot answer the question “how does something proceed from nothing?” if we point to something that’s not nothing…

Given Heisenberg uncertainty, a zero-energy fluctuation could exist for an infinite time.

A ‘fluctuation’ implies that a different (non-zero-energy) state exists; therefore, not ‘nothing’.

A very-close-to-zero-energy fluctuation could exist for a very long time.

A ‘very-close-to-zero-energy’ state is not ‘nothing’. Yet again, your emperor has no clothes…

The material universe of science is a smaller universe than the one we are discussing.

I’m not positing ‘the material universe of science.’ I’m asserting the distinction between “created universe” and “creator.” It’s your conflation of these two that creates the problems that we’re discussing.

Angels and devils are part of your “all that is created” universe, but not part of the STEM universe of science.

Agreed. “Angels” are part of the ‘created universe’ that I assert is distinct from ‘uncreated God’ – a distinction you seem unwilling to make. Your unwillingness to make that distinction do not imply that I’m talking about a distinction between ‘material’ and ‘immaterial’ – on the contrary, I’m only making a distinction between ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’. It’s distressing that you not only fail to make this distinction but also assert I’m making a different distinction.

There is more than one definition of “universe”. I prefer to be explicit about which definition I am using, to save confusion and avoid equivocation.

OK: and I’ve demonstrated that your definition is not only insufficient but also leads to paradox.

I find that some people are al too ready to make an unjustified exception for God.

Fair enough. However, your assertion requires you to demonstrate how this exception is unjustified. We’re waiting…

Such exceptions need to be justified. If God is outside the created universe, then He cannot be omnipresent and cannot act inside the created universe.

Not so. You’re moving the goalposts: to say that God’s existence is outside the bounds of the universe He created (which is, after all, what I said), is not to say that He is unable to act within the universe He created.

That which is outside cannot be inside.

Untrue. For humans – in fact, for created, material beings – one cannot simultaneously be ‘outside’ a spatial bound and ‘inside’ it. However, that limitation does not apply to immaterial beings … nor to an immaterial God who creates the material universe. You can’t make the statement you’re making, unless you claim bounds for God which do not apply to Him. Perhaps you can attempt to prove the assertion you’re really making: “a God who creates the material universe cannot act inside of it”…?

At the very least you will have to split your God into two parts: the part outside and the part inside.

Not unless I agree to the presumptions that are hidden within your assertion: God has parts; God has spatial and/or temporal limitations; God cannot act within creation and not exist within it. See what I mean? Your assertions fail because of the hidden assumptions (which I’m not even certain you realize you’re making!) found within…

One of the well-developed lines of argument in Buddhism is to examine the opponents arguments for logical flaws.

Funny, that. It’s precisely what I’m doing with the flaws in your assertions.

The “God is outside space and time” suggestion is one that bears a lot of further discussion. Is Jesus God? Was Jesus inside or outside space and time?

Good line of discussion. Let’s pick it up after you answer the questions posed to you in this thread.

There is not paradox. Does God exist: yes or no? Does God’s creation exist: yes or no? The only paradoxical answer to those two questions is no, yes. The other three combinations are all non-paradoxical.

Not so. But, let’s see you answer the plethora of questions already posed to you before we untangle this one, ok? I’ll stop here, and await your answers, before I proceed with the rest of your post…

 

[Tomdstone]

No;, the set ‘omnipotent’ can only exist if it has only one member --.

Scripture mentions that there is another God besides God. For example, in Psalm 45:7,8 the king is called a God who was anointed by God.
Somehow the king was viewed as a divine being.

 

[rossum]

The fact that God exists outside of spacetime does not preclude that, as the creator of spacetime, He may appear within it.

Then God is both outside and inside spacetime. Therefore God must have parts, since a single thing cannot have opposed properties. Hence God is compound, like a chessboard and not a singular unresolvable entity.

A chessboard can be both black and white because it has parts: black parts and white parts. Similarly God can be both inside and outside spacetime because He has parts: the part inside and the part outside.

The next step is to analyse the two parts separately.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I’m not positing ‘the material universe of science.’ I’m asserting the distinction between “created universe” and “creator.” It’s your conflation of these two that creates the problems that we’re discussing.

A single universe can contain distinct things. You and the planet Jupiter are distinct things and yet both are contained in the material universe, in the created universe and in the ATE universe. There is no problem with a universe containing distinct things with different properties.

on the contrary, I’m only making a distinction between ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’.

Again, a watchmaker can create a watch. Why cannot the watchmaker and the watch both exist in the same universe? I fail completely to see that different properties always require that things be in different universes. I have defined that ATE universe as “All That Exists”. Anything with the property of existence is ipso facto a member of that universe. The definition of the universe does not mention any other property except existence, so all other properties are irrelevant when deciding if something is a member of that universe.

Your “created things” universe is looking at a different property and so has different members.

For humans – in fact, for created, material beings – one cannot simultaneously be ‘outside’ a spatial bound and ‘inside’ it.

Of course we can. Have you never stood with one foot inside your house and one foot outside it? Because we have parts (feet in this case) we can be in two different places simultaneously. You need to be more careful when you say God is “outside” the material universe. Only part of God is outside; the other part is inside. Also, being omnipresent, God obviously has spatial extension, and hence has spatially extended parts: part is in London and part is in New York.

Perhaps you can attempt to prove the assertion you’re really making: “a God who creates the material universe cannot act inside of it”…?

It was based on your assertion that God is “outside” the material universe. You would probably have done better to say that God was partly outside and partly inside. I know your assertion is common, but it has logical problems.

Not unless I agree to the presumptions that are hidden within your assertion: God has parts;

• Is God entirely inside the material universe? Yes or no?
• Is God entirely outside the material universe? Yes or no?
• Is God both partly inside and partly outside the material universe? Yes or no?
• Is God neither partly inside nor partly outside the material universe? Yes or no?

If you pick the third option then God has at least two parts, defined by whether or not they are inside the material universe, like your two feet inside and outside your house.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Scripture mentions that there is another God besides God.

For example, in Psalm 45:7,8 the king is called a God who was anointed by God.
Somehow the king was viewed as a divine being.

Nice try.

The footnote to this verse, in the NAB, explains, “the king, in courtly language, is called “god,” i.e., more than human, representing God to the people. Heb 1:8–9 applies Ps 45:7–8 to Christ.”

So, no: not ‘God’, as in “two Gods”.

 

[Gorgias]

Then God is both outside and inside spacetime. Therefore God must have parts, since a single thing cannot have opposed properties. Hence God is compound, like a chessboard and not a singular unresolvable entity.

Not so.

God exists outside of His creation; yet, He holds it together by His will. He is present to it at all times (without being ‘inside’ it, as such).

He is simple, not compound: can you point to a lilac or a butterfly and point out the ‘God’ part? Can you ask a surgeon to excise the ‘God part’ from you? Of course not; therefore, you cannot say “God is inside spacetime” in the same way that you can say “rossum is inside spacetime.” It’d be a nice trick if you could; but that’s misconstruing (or at least, misunderstanding) the way in which we mean it when we say that God interacts with His creation.

A chessboard can be both black and white because it has parts: black parts and white parts. Similarly God can be both inside and outside spacetime because He has parts: the part inside and the part outside.

Nope.

You’re attempting to explain God in terms of finite, physical (i.e., material) objects. God is unlike a chessboard, with all its parts, because God is immaterial. God is unlike a chessboard, with its existence as a created object, because God is creator, not creation.

 

[Gorgias]

A single universe can contain distinct things. You and the planet Jupiter are distinct things and yet both are contained in the material universe, in the created universe and in the ATE universe. There is no problem with a universe containing distinct things with different properties.

Agreed. Yet, Jupiter and I share certain properties: we’re created, we’re made of the same kinds of stuff, we had a beginning in time (and we’ll both have a physical end in time). On the other hand, Jupiter and I do not share properties with God – in fact, God is distinct from all of creation. The only thing that Jupiter ‘shares’ with God is the “created” relation (Created[God, Jupiter]). The only additional thing that I share with God is that I was created “in God’s image and likeness.” Therefore, God is distinct from all that is created (whether material or immaterial); your ‘set’, then, is a set that contains two mutually exclusive subsets (with members either in ‘creator’ or ‘created’, but not both). Therefore, when you attempt to generalize over them, the generalization breaks down, since there’s no relation that exists that applies to members of both sets in the same way. In other words: it’s not a helpful construct.

Again, a watchmaker can create a watch. Why cannot the watchmaker and the watch both exist in the same universe? I fail completely to see that different properties always require that things be in different universes.

I’ve noticed that.

The thing is that you’re using ‘create’ equivocally of God and a watchmaker, but they do not ‘create’ in the same way: a watchmaker is himself a creation, and takes already created materials and assembles them in a novel way. God, on the other hand, creates everything from nothing. The watchmaker assembles and walks away; God creates merely by force of will, and then keeps everything in existence through that eternal will. The watchmaker co-exists with the materials with which he works; but God is in a different relationship with creation. So, yeah – the situation is vastly different between the two, and therefore, for the sake of drawing proper inferences, it’s necessary to deal with God and creation in particular (and careful ways), and not just lump them in all together.

I have defined that ATE universe as “All That Exists”. Anything with the property of existence is ipso facto a member of that universe. The definition of the universe does not mention any other property except existence, so all other properties are irrelevant when deciding if something is a member of that universe.

Fair enough; for the sake of a definition, it holds. That’s not what we were discussing, though, was it? We were discussing whether this is a helpful construct or not. I’ve pointed out a few reasons why it is not, and a few ways in which it muddies the waters and creates misunderstanding. That’s what we’re talking about… isn’t it?

Of course we can. Have you never stood with one foot inside your house and one foot outside it? Because we have parts (feet in this case) we can be in two different places simultaneously. You need to be more careful when you say God is “outside” the material universe.

I’m not saying that – at least, not in the way you’re hearing it. God exists in a context that transcends the creation that He’s created. He’s not “inside” or “outside” of it (in the way that you can be “inside” or “outside” a house) – in fact, using that analogy as the basis of your understanding creates problems and paradoxes.

Only part of God is outside; the other part is inside.

Again, we disagree that God has parts.

Also, being omnipresent, God obviously has spatial extension

Wow. Just…wow. No, ‘omnipresence’ does not imply ‘spatial extension’. God is spiritual, not material. God created the universe. Only the things that are created in the universe and are material have spatial extension.

If you want to convince me of the assertion “God has spatial extension”, you’ll have to work a bit harder, because the assertion is not self-evident. Perhaps our disconnect comes from the differences in our religious backgrounds? Perhaps there’s something in Buddhism that leads you to presuppose that ‘God’ has spatial extension and is a composite being?

It was based on your assertion that God is “outside” the material universe. You would probably have done better to say that God was partly outside and partly inside. I know your assertion is common, but it has logical problems.

I say neither/nor. It’s not that God has physical extension ‘outside’ the universe: it’s that His existence transcends the universe He created. (Does that work a bit better, and is a bit more clear, than “exists outside the context of”, perhaps?)

• Is God entirely inside the material universe? Yes or no?

• Is God entirely outside the material universe? Yes or no?

• Is God both partly inside and partly outside the material universe? Yes or no?

• Is God neither partly inside nor partly outside the material universe? Yes or no?

God is not entirely ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the material universe; God is not physical, and so, you cannot create a mapping of physical extension between ‘God’ and ‘universe’. God is neither ‘partly’ anything, so neither of your next two questions works, either.

God transcends creation. He is omnipresent, but not in a physical way. He is simple, not composite. (I think that answers your questions, since they seem to come from the perspective of an understanding of God in a ‘created’ (or at least ‘material’) sense.)

 

[rossum]

God exists outside of His creation; yet, He holds it together by His will. He is present to it at all times (without being ‘inside’ it, as such).

You are redefining words. If God is completely outside His creation then He cannot be present anywhere inside it. That is what the words “inside” and “outside” mean.

If God is both inside and outside His creation then He has at least two parts: the inside part and the outside part.

I can point to other difference within God: He both knows (Father) and does not know (Son) the date of the end of the world. Such difference indicate different parts, as with a chessboard. Otherwise you are assigning contrary properties to a single non-compound object, which destroys logic and allows anything to be “proved”. A contradiction can be used to ‘prove’ and arbitrary statement true.

He is simple, not compound

Is the Trinity simple or compound?

You’re attempting to explain God in terms of finite, physical (i.e., material) objects. God is unlike a chessboard, with all its parts, because God is immaterial. God is unlike a chessboard, with its existence as a created object, because God is creator, not creation.

Does logic apply to God or not? If it does then my argument holds; if not then God does not exist because colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Beware of abandoning logic, it is a very useful tool.

rossum

 

[Tomdstone]

If God is both inside and outside His creation then He has at least two parts: the inside part and the outside part…

Does logic apply to God or not?

It looks to me like God is both inside and outside of creation.
I have seen people here claim that God is above logic. But as you point out, it is a mistake to abandon logic.