God cannot explain the origin of life

[Gorgias]

You are redefining words.

And you’re using words that are applicable to created, finite creations, but expecting them to apply equally as well to God.

Naturally, when used in the context of an uncreated, infinite God, these words cannot take on a meaning that is precisely the same as when they refer to finite beings. So, it’s not that I’m being petulant or difficult – it’s simply that, when using words that have a context in the universe, they naturally apply (at best) only analogically in the context of the infinite. Therefore, we must carefully define what we mean – otherwise, we invalidly extrapolate.

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

In the context for us, as created beings? I agree – in that context, that’s what “inside” and “outside” mean. However, we cannot claim those limitations for God; otherwise, we misconstrue His nature. I can see how this must be frustrating for you. However, you seemed OK with ambiguities when talking about the Buddha; can you not perceive that discussions of God must similarly take us outside of our comfort zone and our normal mode of understanding?

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

If He were material, then yes. He’s not; therefore, no, that isn’t true.

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.

One must approach these texts with nuance and wisdom. It might go better if you ask a Catholic what this line means, rather than telling him what it means from your perspective.

We understand that to mean that Jesus defers to the Father in this respect. In his Incarnation, Jesus is still truly God while also being truly Man. As ‘man’, he does not presume to take on the Father’s role; and this is what He’s talking about here.

Such difference indicate different parts, as with a chessboard.

You’ve brought up a new point here – one that hadn’t yet been discussed: the complexities of the Incarnation. This new line of discussion might be fruitful, since some of your objections might reasonably come into play (and lead to an answer which might be more palatable for you).

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.

God is simple – non-material, spiritual, non-compound. In the Incarnation, the Second Person of God (the Logos) takes on flesh and becomes a man. (In this sense, we can discuss being ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the universe.) This does not “destroy logic.”

Is the Trinity simple or compound?

The Trinity is of a single substance; it is simple. One cannot point to a ‘part’ of the Godhead and say “that’s the ‘Father’ part” and another and say “that’s the ‘Son’ part” and a third and say “that’s the ‘Spirit’ part”. In this sense, God is simple, not composite.

God is also a Trinity of Persons. We can describe ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Spirit’, but in doing so, we are not identifying ‘parts’ (in the way I could point to you and say ‘head’, ‘arms’, ‘legs’ as parts).

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.

Logic applies to God. However, we cannot presume that what applies to humans and other creations applies equivocally to God. It is this presumption, it seems, that is causing you problems.

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

Beware of using human concepts as if they apply equivalently to God; they become very useless tools.

 

[Tomdstone]

If He were material, then yes. He’s not;

If God is not material how could He be heard walking in a garden on earth. How could He be seen face to face by man on earth?
Gen3:8
Gen 32:30
Exo 33:11

 

[Tomdstone]

Beware of using human concepts as if they apply equivalently to God; they become very useless tools.

Do you claim that when applied to statements about God, logic is a useless tool?

 

[Tomdstone]

The Trinity is of a single substance; it is simple. One cannot point to a ‘part’ of the Godhead and say “that’s the ‘Father’ part” and another and say “that’s the ‘Son’ part” and a third and say “that’s the ‘Spirit’ part”. In this sense, God is simple, not composite.

I don’t see how you can deny that God is three persons, which is not one person. so you can say that there is one person who is the Father, and there is a second person who is the Son and there is a third person who is the Holy Spirit.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t see how you can deny that God is three persons, which is not one person. so you can say that there is one person who is the Father, and there is a second person who is the Son and there is a third person who is the Holy Spirit.

He is one. One God, three persons - Love. The Father begets the Son who returns all He is to the Father. One Breath, in and out between them. Something like that. I would recommend reading at least the Catechism and not listen to random idiots like myself on the Internet. There is one transcendent God whom we cannot know logically, but only through love. We have the Holy Spirit who helps us to grow in Christ and thereby know the Father. To be Christ-like is to be loving, not an intellectual genius.

 

[rossum]

And you’re using words that are applicable to created, finite creations, but expecting them to apply equally as well to God.

The Bible uses words. Do those words apply to God or do they not apply to Him? Are we to ignore all descriptions of God that use words because words do not apply to God. That puts God into the same category as the Hindu Brahman or the Buddhist nirvana: “All descriptions of nirvana are incorrect.” They are incorrect precisely because they use words.

Is God the creator? Of course not, because “creator” is a word and we cannot use words to apply to God.

Naturally, when used in the context of an uncreated, infinite God, these words cannot take on a meaning that is precisely the same as when they refer to finite beings.

So, we will have to agree a complete new dictionary in order to continue this discussion. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to do that.

Logic applies to God. However, we cannot presume that what applies to humans and other creations applies equivocally to God. It is this presumption, it seems, that is causing you problems.

So, some logic applies to God while other logic does not. Now we will have to agree on a new God-logic as well as a new dictionary.

Beware of using human concepts as if they apply equivalently to God; they become very useless tools.

A pity that the Bible writers and the Church Fathers did not realise that. All those human concepts they put into their writings were useless.

Perhaps you are talking of a Zen God:

The master Tozan was weighing some flax. A monk came up to him in
the storeroom and said, “Tell me, what is Buddha?”

Tozan answered, “Here: five pounds of flax.”

or maybe Vimalakirti’s God:

Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

The Bible uses words. Do those words apply to God or do they not apply to Him?

They do. However, they do not apply to Him in the exact same way that they apply to humans. It’s important to make that distinction, or else we end up thinking that God literally cries, is angry, changes His mind, etc, etc.

Are we to ignore all descriptions of God that use words because words do not apply to God.

No; but we’re to thoughtfully discern what the meanings of those words are.

Is God the creator? Of course not, because “creator” is a word and we cannot use words to apply to God.

LOL – good point, and one that you’ve already stumbled over! God is not a ‘creator’ in the way that a human watchmaker is a ‘creator’ – rather, He’s a creator in a way that none of us have ever created: by willing into existence everything from nothing.

See what I mean? We have to be careful how we use the words, or else we get the wrong idea about God…

So, we will have to agree a complete new dictionary in order to continue this discussion. I’m afraid I don’t have the time to do that.

No… you just have to be open to the necessity of recognizing that what is said of God isn’t said in the same way as it’s said of humans. You’re not learning a new vocabulary; just recognizing appropriate definitions. To my mind, it’s not dissimilar to your process of learning and growth as a Buddhist; simply in a direction that we (as Catholics and Christians) believe is the fullness of the truth…

So, some logic applies to God while other logic does not. Now we will have to agree on a new God-logic as well as a new dictionary.

Dealing with the eternal and the sublime is a real challenge, ain’t it?!?!?

A pity that the Bible writers and the Church Fathers did not realise that. All those human concepts they put into their writings were useless.

They realized it – and they did the best they could to express the sublime with human words. A pity that not all readers of their writings realize this…

It’s kinda funny that you brought up these examples from eastern philosophical thought – in a way, they’re pretty relevant to our discussion of how to understand God! Is He this or that or some other thing over there? No – saying this is precisely the way to limit God, and in doing so, to misunderstand Him. Is He, then, not this and not that and not some other thing over there? Yes… that approach helps somewhat, but is itself incomplete: by knowing what God is not, we still don’t grasp fully what He is.

Blessings,
G.

 

[rossum]

They do. However, they do not apply to Him in the exact same way that they apply to humans.

So we still need a new dictionary with two parallel meanings for words. In effect you are saying that an English translation of the Bible is not actually written in standard English, but in a different parallel language that superficially looks like English but actually isn’t because the words have different meanings from those given in a standard English dictionary.

It’s important to make that distinction, or else we end up thinking that God literally cries, is angry, changes His mind, etc, etc.

So God does not get angry at sin and God does not love humanity because “angry” and “love” don’t mean what the dictionary says when applied to God. Instead we should say, “God gets lecawi at sin,” and “God kichades humanity,” to make it clear that we are using words with non-standard meanings.

No; but we’re to thoughtfully discern what the meanings of those words are.

How does this differ from the Protestant approach where believers can interpret the Bible for themselves?

God is not a ‘creator’ in the way that a human watchmaker is a ‘creator’ – rather, He’s a creator in a way that none of us have ever created: by willing into existence everything from nothing.

Another example of the Humpty Dumpty argument: “a word means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Dealing with the eternal and the sublime is a real challenge, ain’t it?!?!?

And one which you have failed to meet, since you have not provided us with a new God-compatible logic. You still have no way to refute “God does not exist because colourless green ideas sleep furiously.”

You have painted yourself into a corner here. You have rejected both words and logic. What do you have left?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Perhaps you are talking of a Zen God:

The master Tozan was weighing some flax. A monk came up to him in
the storeroom and said, “Tell me, what is Buddha?”

Tozan answered, “Here: five pounds of flax.”

or maybe Vimalakirti’s God:

Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”

rossum

You have an idea of what they mean and it causes you to argue.
If you knew what they mean, you would know there is no argument.

 

[Tomdstone]

So God does not get angry at sin and God does not love humanity

I don’t know why people argue that.

 

[rossum]

I don’t know why people argue that.

I argued that because I was told that words like “angry” and “love” do not apply to God. Was I misinformed?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

. . . misinformed? . . .

misunderstood

 

[Tomdstone]

Immaterial. The discussion is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, as rossum has set it up. So, whether the ‘process’ includes abiogenesis or not doesn’t really come into play. Instead, rossum’s conditions attempt to prevent a discussion of God’s (potential for) causing life. As such, these conditions fail, since they artificially constrain the discussion.

I disagree because if abiogenesis is possible, then it is not necessary to invoke divine intervention to explain the origin of life. Further, if philosophy contradicts a scientific fact, then I would go with the scientific fact over the philosophical speculation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I disagree because if abiogenesis is possible, then it is not necessary to invoke divine intervention to explain the origin of life. Further, if philosophy contradicts a scientific fact, then I would go with the scientific fact over the philosophical speculation.

Abiogenesis obviously was possible, but not as a process of natural selection, since there was nothing to evolve from. Darwin cannot be invoked to dismiss God, nor did Darwin invoke himself to dismiss God, having referred to himself as a theist.

As Aristotle said,

“A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility.”

It is an unconvincing possibility that abiogenesis was an accident.

You should consider the likely impossibility that God was in charge of abiogenesis.

 

[Gorgias]

I disagree because if abiogenesis is possible, then it is not necessary to invoke divine intervention to explain the origin of life.

Aah, but you’d have to explain the existence of the materials, no? And, if there’s a creator of the universe, then He’s the creator of the processes that give rise to life, wouldn’t you say? So, all you’ve accomplished is peeling a layer off the onion…

Further, if philosophy contradicts a scientific fact, then I would go with the scientific fact over the philosophical speculation.

What “scientific fact” would contradict a philosophical notion, then? Abiogenesis wouldn’t contradict any theology… but would simply be something that theology could point to!

 

[Tomdstone]

I argued that because I was told that words like “angry” and “love” do not apply to God. Was I misinformed?

rossum

I hear all the time that God loves us.

 

[Tomdstone]

What “scientific fact” would contradict a philosophical notion, then?

Philosophy generally does not use trial and error to validate notions such as platonic ideals in the “real world”. In other words, in many cases philosophical speculation lacks tangible feedback. Further, philosophers often disagree. Take for example, the question of using torture to extract information about terrorism and thereby save lives. Some philosophers will say it is justified, whereas others will say it is not.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Philosophy generally does not use trial and error to validate notions such as platonic ideals in the “real world”. In other words, in many cases philosophical speculation lacks tangible feedback.

In many cases philosophy offers tangible feedback if “tangible” refers to experiential rather than experimental feedback.

Every scientist is also a philosopher, even when (or if) he denies he is a philosopher.

They were philosophers (like Aristotle and Francis Bacon) who first discovered science as an intellectual methodology for learning about the world of tangible things and events.

Most scientists owe a great debt to philosophers, even if they often enough don’t know it.

 

[Tomdstone]

I argued that because I was told that words like “angry” and “love” do not apply to God. Was I misinformed?

rossum

There is a whole thread here at CAF about how God loves us:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1013001

 

[Tomdstone]

In many cases philosophy offers tangible feedback if “tangible” refers to experiential rather than experimental feedback.

Every scientist is also a philosopher, even when (or if) he denies he is a philosopher.

They were philosophers (like Aristotle and Francis Bacon) who first discovered science as an intellectual methodology for learning about the world of tangible things and events.

Most scientists owe a great debt to philosophers, even if they often enough don’t know it.

Philosophers disagree about a lot of things. For example, some will say that it is necessary to invoke divine intervention to explain the existence of life,while others will say that the existence of life can be explained without assuming divine intervention. In science disagreements are often solved by recourse to tangible real world trial and error experiments or observations. What tangible mechanism is available to settle speculative philosophical issues?