God exists; but how?

[crazzeto]

I’m entering late, I realize that… But I honestly think that trying to scientifically prove how God exists with in the paramaters of what we know about the universe is well… A little foolish. God is something greater than us, for us the best we can hope for is to simply know God exists. Trying to constrain God to our defninition for the laws of the natural universe will just lead you straight into trouble, at best just give you a theory full of holes which people will no doubt, pick apart.

I’m not trying to rag on the OP here or anything.

 

[greylorn]

I’m entering late, I realize that… But I honestly think that trying to scientifically prove how God exists with in the paramaters of what we know about the universe is well… A little foolish. God is something greater than us, for us the best we can hope for is to simply know God exists. Trying to constrain God to our defninition for the laws of the natural universe will just lead you straight into trouble, at best just give you a theory full of holes which people will no doubt, pick apart.

I’m not trying to rag on the OP here or anything.

You’ve set your sights on ignorance and seem pretty well locked in. Might as well pull down. You’re certain to hit your target. But if you were expecting a nice venison roast, better get used to the taste of boiled skunk.

This is a nice way of saying that perhaps you should find a comfortable corner on CAF in which you can reiterate and reinforce that which you believe. If you continue to ignore the red underlines on the automatic spelling checker which CAF provides to help us all look smarter than we are, they might not notice.

Here is a thought you might consider. Major religions all have a bible of some sort, and these bibles all share one thing in common. They were all written by men. They have another thing in common. The men who wrote them, or their followers, have all declared these books to be inspired by God.

Yet there is one Bible certain to have been written by God. It is the physical universe, and the laws and mechanisms contained therein. There is no other “bible” so directly reflective of God’s certain nature and purpose as the physical universe which He created.

The problem is that this Bible cannot be studied without some effort, which includes mathematical training. It is so much easier to read a few, selected words of men who wrote their personal opinions about the nature and purpose of God---- men who also thought that our flat earth was at the center of the universe. Next time you open your bible, check out Matthew 25:14-30. Explain the end of this parable.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn:

…I’ve chosen a logic-limited and extremely capable creator.

I didn’t know we could choose our creators.

This was an error in expression on my part. I meant that I had chosen a concept of a logic-limited and capable Creator.

But, you knew that, and nonetheless choose to pretend otherwise. It’s okay. I use that ploy myself on occasion. It would feel righteous to say that I use it to get someone’s attention, but the nearer truth is that I use it because I’m really annoyed at what I perceive as a mindless comment. I’ve not used that ploy with you.

I propose that you and I not play that game anymore. There are some ambiguities in this post of yours, but I know what you mean. I’ll question you openly and honestly on any comments you make which I genuinely do not understand. If I break that promise, I’ll send you a bottle of cheap whiskey by way of apology.

It was very easy to misunderstand what you said, though, if you look back at it.

greylorn:

For others, much easier than it should have been for you.

Consider: “It is pretty clear that the Christian definition of God is contradictory to the First Law of Thermodynamics.” My immediate question, on reading that, was: OK, so why do we know the First Law is true?

The validity of the statement, "“It is pretty clear that the Christian definition of God is contradictory to the First Law of Thermodynamics,” does not depend upon the truth of either component of that statement.

We know what the definition of God is, and what the first Law is. They are either contradictory or not. Both could be false. The statement only means that both cannot be true. But prejudicial belief always enters into these conversations. I’ll bet that if I’d written, “The belief, that the universe came into existence from the droppings of a large green cat, is contradictory to the First Law,” I’d not have heard a complaint.

My statement is just a logical distinction between two possibilities. It does not itself declare either statement to be true or false, only that both cannot be true.

Most people would respond by saying it has been proven experimentally, which is what I took your position to be. But this position leads to no contradiction with a Christian God, and that was my point.

Neither the First Law nor belief in an omnipotent God has been proven experimentally. I doubt that either will be. Both are inferential.

Nonetheless, either your point is correct, or mine is. Both can be false, but both cannot be true. Your claim that there is no contradiction is wishful. There is no more clear contradiction between a principle of science and religion than this. The Darwinist/Creationist psuedo-contradictions are irrelevant by comparison.

The First Law, generalized, implies that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is clear and unequivocal. Christianity believes that its God created everything, including energy. That too is clear and unequivocal. Both cannot be true.

Now that I see that you have *chosen *to believe in the First Law, your position makes more sense. But, if your creator created the First Law, are you saying that this creator had the power to create something he could not curtail?

I didn’t take my stupid pill this morning either.

Having chosen to believe in both the Conservation of Energy principle (First Law of Thermodynamics) and a created universe, I am logically constrained to a definition of the Creator which does not include omnipotence. I have no problem with this, because omnipotence and omniscience are not properties which can be logically assigned to a real entity. I prefer to believe that God is real.

Your question has some powerful implications, but this is not a suitable format for an answer and the ensuing discussions. I will skip those, for the time being. We have a more fundamental point to consider.

The implication of this discussion is clear. If one chooses to believe in a Creator (as you and I both do) and that the First Law of Thermodynamics is generally valid (as I do), it follows that God did not create energy.

Is this a simple and elegant resolution of multiple problems, or what?

I’m quite puzzled by your statements here. What I said was that Christianity was not entailed by rationality. It *is *entailed by the fact that God avails himself of a relationship with us. It is not our minds that leads our hearts to Christ, but rather our hearts that lead our minds to Christ. Theism, however, may very well be entailed by rationality.

Since I do not know how to use the word “entailed” in a sentence, except in a legal document, I hope that at this point you are less puzzled by my previous statements. In terms of clear thinking, you were doing pretty good until you used “heart” in a nonsensical and illogical manner. The human heart is a pump. It doesn’t lead anyone anywhere.

I promise never to use “entailed” and “rationality” in the same sentence if you at least consider doing likewise.

One of the worst heresies, in my estimation, is intellectualism.

I don’t know about the heresy part. Being heretical requires being heretical with respect to a belief. The few intellectuals I regret having known do not seem to believe in anything higher than opinions written in books which they’ve stuffed into their own tiny brains, leaving no mindspace for imaginative thought.

Catch me behaving like one of those turkeys and you’ll get two bottles of whiskey, my choice.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ll break this up into 2 or 3 sections to keep the material accessible to any readers with short attention spans.

Thanks for thinking of me.

Cherry picking is as good a way to find truth as it is to get delicious cherries. It’s simple discrimination. For example, physics offers a wide range of theories to explain the exact same phenomena. Why should I choose phlogiston theory over thermodynamics to explain heat transfer? A true scientist would say, “because it works better.” Not a true scientist, I’m allowed to say, “Because the Three Laws of Thermodynamics are so elegant, so beautifully simple that I am attracted to them intellectually.” Nevermind that the interval between my first reading them and “final” understanding was about twenty years. And, yes, incidentally, they work!

I have no objection to your method as a philosophical pastime, but I do not consider it a reliable way to discover what is true. (Perhaps that’s not what you’re looking for?) For example, if I were a detective, I would not expect the explanation for a certain crime to conform to the most elegant hypothesis I could devise. I fail to see why our understanding of the universe should not parallel the epistemic endeavor of the detective.

Cherry picking applies to religious ideas as nicely. I had no trouble accepting the idea of a Creator. I was raised to believe in God, of course, but when it came time to determine which ideas from those given me by my various teachers to accept or discard, it was easy and natural to keep the idea of a Creator, for I had always seen intelligence at work in every aspect (but one) of the world I had learned about, So I kept the idea of a creator. However, I could not figure out why any entity smart enough to create a universe and a planet full of complex critters would create me, or most of the people on this planet. So, unable to see any point to the creation of man, I declined to blame God for the worst component of that particular project, namely the “soul.”

This proved so much simpler than trying to explain why God would have created the darned thing.

You’re right that the human soul is a perennial apologetic nightmare, I suppose. And yet, I fail to see how there could be any ultimate goodness in the world without free souls.

I simply accepted those properties of God which made sense and rejected those which did not. I’m curious that you find this an inefficient way to arrive at truth. Do you think that choosing illogical ideas and beliefs which do not correlate well with commonplace evidence is a better way?

Well, first you cherry-picked an understanding of the universe. Once you pick your elegant theory, perhaps it is reasonable to reject a God that cannot coexist with it. But why pick the elegant theory? More on this later…

You are absolutely correct. She would not, and does not. She just suffers and prays for others.

You’re lucky to have her as a friend.

Hope is the last refuge of the futile. A modicum of hope that I am not absolutely futile has kept me on planet.

You are certainly not absolutely futile. For one, you’re helping me to think about methods of philosophy in new ways, which I appreciate. The fact that I disagree does not keep me from being fascinated.

I theorize that we can only grow from experiences,and that each lifetime can only accommodate a few “meaningful” experiences. According to my theories, you will need a few more lifetimes, and will probably receive them.

Just as long as I don’t end up as a plant.

 

[greylorn]

greylorn:

For those of you who might see this as some sort of insult, kindly note that human beings are not rational, and that being irrational is not like being evil. It is more like being human.

Agreed, to a point. But how do we have any idea of being rational then? Or do we?

Your “Agreed, to a point,” phrase does not mean much unless you specify the point.

Being “rational” is a booby prize.

There are people who go out dancing to look good, and others who go out to have fun. The dancers who look good are those who are having fun.

Do you want to understand your true nature and purpose, or do you want to be well regarded by those who tell you what your nature and purpose is?

The concept of “rationality” is meaningless. There are no objective standards for determining whether or not a person is thinking or behaving rationally. Such determinations are actually based upon agreement. A Catholic will regard you as rational if you agree with Catholic dogma. Likewise, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or atheism.

You once asked if I was seeking truth. Let me turn the question back in your direction. Are you seeking truth, or just agreement that you’ve found it?

 

[johankrava]

God exists; but how?

I will try to answer in a different way.

Let’s start with this: God does not exist.
The existence of anything is a product of human experience and understanding.
Of course, things would probably exist even without humans, but we discuss how we, humans, understand existence. So we try to describe rules and explain everything around us.
The “problem” starts when we start explaining things. We can either try to explain thing based on observation, experiment, theory, prediction, or we can attribute some phenomena to “god” - some supernatural being. In the later case there is no experiment, theory, prediction, etc. We simply assume existence of it - mostly because we fail to explain in other ways.

Therefore it is up to us, to you, or to anybody to define God’s existence.
This is how I understand it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Being “rational” is a booby prize.

What could you possibly mean by that?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This was an error in expression on my part. I meant that I had chosen a concept of a logic-limited and capable Creator.

I propose that you and I not play that game anymore. There are some ambiguities in this post of yours, but I know what you mean. I’ll question you openly and honestly on any comments you make which I genuinely do not understand. If I break that promise, I’ll send you a bottle of cheap whiskey by way of apology.

I guess I thought of it as a joke, with a sharp edge. I didn’t think your comment was mindless at all, but I do find your method of seeking unusual.

My statement is just a logical distinction between two possibilities. It does not itself declare either statement to be true or false, only that both cannot be true.

OK, let’s break it down. (Sorry; I’m taking a logic class).

P = God can do anything logically possible.
Q = Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Q → not-P (If Q, then God is limited).

Of course, this means they are contradictory. And yet, commonly, when we state the laws of nature, there is a hidden qualification: these laws of true *within *the system of nature (that is, “creation” or – well, you know what I mean). If there is something beyond nature, then we don’t know how well our concepts apply to it.

In other words, my hypothesis is that nature is a system, within a larger system. The rules at one level of programming do not necessarily apply to another level, and none of the rules of the program itself apply to the programmer.

By the way, I do believe in something like your idea of God – at least I think it would be comparable – but I call it an angel. It has dominion over portions of reality, but this dominion does not include omnipotence.

I didn’t take my stupid pill this morning either.

I figure, one of these mornings…

Having chosen to believe in both the Conservation of Energy principle (First Law of Thermodynamics) and a created universe, I am logically constrained to a definition of the Creator which does not include omnipotence. I have no problem with this, because omnipotence and omniscience are not properties which can be logically assigned to a real entity. I prefer to believe that God is real.

I don’t think omnipotence and omniscience are as incoherent as all that, but even assuming they are: if no human being has adequately described how omnipotence and omniscience are logically possible, that could simply be a strike against human beings’ mental capacity, not the concepts themselves.

The implication of this discussion is clear. If one chooses to believe in a Creator (as you and I both do) and that the First Law of Thermodynamics is generally valid (as I do), it follows that God did not create energy.

Yes, of course. But quick caveat: I haven’t chosen to believe in a Creator. I *am convinced *that there is a Creator. I really don’t believe that I have the power to choose to believe in very much at all; my beliefs form themselves, on the basis of what seems likely to me (of course, there are also psychological constraints at work). I could not at this moment choose not to believe in God, although I could choose to *act like *an atheist. On the other hand, I could become convinced that there is no God, and still act like a Christian. But I don’t see how choice plays any role in what I believe, only in how I act.

Is this a simple and elegant resolution of multiple problems, or what?

I will concede this much: your description could be true. I can see now the explanatory power that you’re arguing for, and yet God seems like an unnecessary adjunct to your system. What is His role? I feel like, though your system explains some things well, it is open to criticisms often leveled at both theism and atheism. *Why *is there energy, in the first place? What about the energy led to God?

Since I do not know how to use the word “entailed” in a sentence, except in a legal document, I hope that at this point you are less puzzled by my previous statements. In terms of clear thinking, you were doing pretty good until you used “heart” in a nonsensical and illogical manner. The human heart is a pump. It doesn’t lead anyone anywhere.

Ah, but aren’t you deliberately misunderstanding me here? We use the term “heart” to refer to that part of the mind that experiences trust, love, hatred, etc – these are all emotions that occur within the context of our relationships. When I say I have a relationship with God, I mean just that: that I experience feelings in relationship to Him. This could all be imaginary, of course, but so could my relationship with my wife.

I didn’t have any reason to claim that my wife was real, and that our relationship was meaningful, until there *was *a relationship (until we met). Likewise, I only feel a need to argue that relationships with God are possible because I have a relationship with God. Such a relationship is, I believe, available to all. I would say that any “Christianity” absent this relationship is chasing after the wind, and meaningless. I don’t believe in God because He explains things better than other hypotheses; I believe in God because I know him. This is why I find arguments to “prove” God’s existence absurd.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t know about the heresy part. Being heretical requires being heretical with respect to a belief. The few intellectuals I regret having known do not seem to believe in anything higher than opinions written in books which they’ve stuffed into their own tiny brains, leaving no mindspace for imaginative thought.

Catch me behaving like one of those turkeys and you’ll get two bottles of whiskey, my choice.

Good. We both agree that too many intellectuals play games with truth, which is to say they implicitly suspect there is no such thing.

I find heresy a useful term to redefine. Heresy, in my mind, means an error in judgment, that leads a person far off from the path of understanding. The error of the intellectual is this: for a person to assume that the world is intelligible in human terms, without giving an account as to why this assumption should be true.

Do you want to understand your true nature and purpose, or do you want to be well regarded by those who tell you what your nature and purpose is?

I want to understand.

You once asked if I was seeking truth. Let me turn the question back in your direction. Are you seeking truth, or just agreement that you’ve found it?

Good question. I am seeking truth, and I hope you recognize that. But I do recognize that being considered “rational” or “insightful” is quite appealing to me, and I am tempted with such a false path. I am under no self-deception that I’ve found the whole truth, however, and I much prefer to seek that understanding than to succumb to the lie of the mind.

 

[greylorn]

What could you possibly mean by that?

I tried to explain in subsequent paragraphs.

 

[yppop]

To one and all,
Just back from vacation and I see that my thread has been completely derailed, primarily by my friend Greylorn, who apparently finds my thesis to be a threat to his own. I’m okay with that because GL predicted that there was no way I could present anything approaching an esoteric argument that would be understood by anyone in this forum. And just to be sure that his prediction came true; he made it a self-fulfilling prophecy by becoming the chief antagonist. So be it!

Now for the third time I will quit presenting my thesis. Previously I promised to quit unless there was evidence of an interest. I used the number of hits, which were substantial enough to indicate interest, to determine the level of interest and continued my presentation. As a physicist by training and engineer by profession, I am used to making decisions based on data and number of hits is the only data available.

What a surprise I got when I discovered that since my last post (#157) there have been 30 posts by others that generated nearly 600 hits — far more hits than anything I was able to generate with my posts. Obviously, GL, MOM, and others are the stars of this show. So, my thesis presentation must go whimpering into the sunset.

I am more a humorist than a philosopher and how could I not appreciate the absolute beauty of this exchange, one that explains the allure of respondents such as GL and MOM:

*Post 183, Greylorn: “Being ‘rational’ is a booby prize.”

Post 185, MindOverMatter: “What could you possibly mean by that?”

Post 188, Greylorn: I tried to explain in subsequent paragraphs*

“I tried” denotes the past; “in subsequent paragraphs” denotes the future. Now you may think this is a syntactical error, but as one that has read GL’s thesis in some detail, if there is anyone who could project an explanation in the future before it could be read, it is he.

And as I write this, it appears that GL has stumped MOM with his enigmatic statement about futuristic explanations. Letthe circus continue!

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

To one and all,
Just back from vacation and I see that my thread has been completely derailed, primarily by my friend Greylorn, who apparently finds my thesis to be a threat to his own. I’m okay with that because GL predicted that there was no way I could present anything approaching an esoteric argument that would be understood by anyone in this forum. And just to be sure that his prediction came true; he made it a self-fulfilling prophecy by becoming the chief antagonist. So be it!

Now for the third time I will quit presenting my thesis. Previously I promised to quit unless there was evidence of an interest. I used the number of hits, which were substantial enough to indicate interest, to determine the level of interest and continued my presentation. As a physicist by training and engineer by profession, I am used to making decisions based on data and number of hits is the only data available.

What a surprise I got when I discovered that since my last post (#157) there have been 30 posts by others that generated nearly 600 hits — far more hits than anything I was able to generate with my posts. Obviously, GL, MOM, and others are the stars of this show. So, my thesis presentation must go whimpering into the sunset.

I am more a humorist than a philosopher and how could I not appreciate the absolute beauty of this exchange, one that explains the allure of respondents such as GL and MOM:

*Post 183, Greylorn: “Being ‘rational’ is a booby prize.”

Post 185, MindOverMatter: “What could you possibly mean by that?”

Post 188, Greylorn: I tried to explain in subsequent paragraphs*

“I tried” denotes the past; “in subsequent paragraphs” denotes the future. Now you may think this is a syntactical error, but as one that has read GL’s thesis in some detail, if there is anyone who could project an explanation in the future before it could be read, it is he.

And as I write this, it appears that GL has stumped MOM with his enigmatic statement about futuristic explanations. Letthe circus continue!

Yppop

YP,

Now you know why I never go on vacation without arranging for someone to come by and feed the darned cats. Now, was it really a vacation, or were you threatening to die?

I sure hope that you really appreciate me more than you let on. If it wasn’t for having me to blame, you’d be stuck fessing up to never explaining your ideas in terms that people could understand.

The only thing that will ever distinguish either of us from the general lot of cranks and crackpots who have appeared, like transitory pimples, upon the soft posterior of human intellectual progress, is our ability to explain our ideas coherently enough that someone else takes them seriously.

I invite you to be sufficiently ornery, persnickity, and persistent to continue to hold forth on this site. It’s your baby, after all, and has not been closed. It has attracted a few good minds, and I believe that it has done so because of the quality of your intent. You are seeking a higher level of understanding about the beginnings of things than either your chosen religion or science have offered you. In this, you are not alone.

From this sharing of a common goal, you’ve generously accepted my invitation to review my website, finding a serious error which I’ve corrected. I regret that I was unable to return the favor. I studied your presentations of your ideas here on CAF and could not make sense of them. It would have been disingenuous of me to pretend otherwise or to not request clarification. I did what I could.

Despite my attempts at humor, I’ve maintained considerable respect for you, nevermind how ornery you’ve gotten. You did something which few have had the courage to do— you put your ideas out here for public scrutiny. You seem a bit thin-skinned when it comes to defending them, but the fact remains that you put them out.

This means (or at least I infer therefrom) that you recognize the need for new ideas about the beginnings of things. If so, we are on the same side. Chances are high that my ideas and yours are equally incorrect. But what is more important? To be right, or to get the job done? You were an engineer, yes? Can we be allies in a search for better understanding?

Could we not find a way to invite others to our common search for understanding? I do not believe that upmanship will prove helpful in that respect. Mea culpa, friend.

 

[coolduude]

Bump

 

[cho_pilo]

Since we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God,

Literal proof typically isn’t available to us outside mathematics and formal logic. What we do often have access to are arguments that may or may not make particular propositions seem more or less likely.

I think that those kind of arguments can be generated regarding various kinds of theistic conceptions and about the likelihood of the gods featured in various religions.

philosophically we are free to assume either premise.

We can even assume the truth of demonstrably false propositions if we want to, for purposes of discussion. We might want to explore the implications of some counter-factual state of affairs being true.

My thesis begins with the positive premise: God exists!

Ok, we can easily imagine that for purposes of discussion.

My argument addresses the question: How does God exist?

What is/are your argument/s?

 

[cho_pilo]

God exists! By God I mean the triune God of Christianity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons in one essence that is: eternal, infinite, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

Assuming that seems to be begging an awful lot of questions. We can probably accept that assumption for sake of argument. The problem is that assuming too many items of doctrine as initial presuppositions threatens to render the whole discussion circular and turn it into an expression of personal faith.

What’s more, it isn’t entirely clear what those phrases even mean. “Triune God”? “Three persons in one essence”? Somebody would have to propound a whole trinitarian theology if they hoped to make those kind of ideas intelligible. I’m not sure if that’s ever been accomplished successfully, without throwing up hands at some point and calling it a ‘divine mystery’.

 

[yppop]

Literal proof typically isn’t available to us outside mathematics and formal logic. What we do often have access to are arguments that may or may not make particular propositions seem more or less likely.

I think that those kind of arguments can be generated regarding various kinds of theistic conceptions and about the likelihood of the gods featured in various religions.

We can even assume the truth of demonstrably false propositions if we want to, for purposes of discussion. We might want to explore the implications of some counter-factual state of affairs being true.

Ok, we can easily imagine that for purposes of discussion.

What is/are your argument/s?

Cho,
It is 14 months since I resigned from this thread due mainly to the appearance of an angel of death called Greylorn. I scarcely feel obligated to answer your question since I have already expended substantial effort in presenting arguments in my previous posts.

Thanks for looking anyway.
Yppop

 

[cho_pilo]

Cho,
It is 14 months since I resigned from this thread due mainly to the appearance of an angel of death called Greylorn. I scarcely feel obligated to answer your question since I have already expended substantial effort in presenting arguments in my previous posts.

Thanks for looking anyway.
Yppop

Thanks for your response. Please put your cards on the table, in clear view, for once. Give us the “how God exists” arguments that you think demonstrate the truth of the “God must exist” premise. I’m interested to see your arguments apart from a number of quotations by persons of great stature from your initial post.

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for your response. Please put your cards on the table, in clear view, for once. Give us the “how God exists” arguments that you think demonstrate the truth of the “God must exist” premise. I’m interested to see your arguments apart from a number of quotations by persons of great stature from your initial post.

Cho:

Please read through the thread called, Space. Most of that is Yppop’s thesis of God and “things” and “stuff.” You are more than welcome to respond to any of his posts there. Because of commitments, he may not be able to do multiple threads.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think the ideas being presented by this O.P. are dangerous beyond belief. I’m very surprised how many gullible Catholics are giving it serious consideration. I urge everyone on this thread to stop being amature theologians and stick to what is true and safe. How many of you have taken up a serious study of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas? Yet you discuss things which have been rebuted by Aristotle and Thomas.

Experimental theology is a very dangerous topic.

A public forum, open to children, adults, the educated and the uneducated is not the proper place to do expermental theology. Write your papers if you wish but submit them for Peer review in the proper periodicals and in the proper venues.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A brief outline of a few objections to post # 1. These remarks are all that I will make, the topic deserves no additional discussion.

1. Creation consists of corporeal and incorporeal substances, but God is not part of created reality. He existed prior to created reality. This is Catholic Doctrine and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and all reliable Catholic Philosophers and Theologians. So Angels and the human soul are part of created reality, God is not.
2. The " nothingness " from which God created the corporeal and the incorporeal was identified by Thomas Aquinas and defined by the Church as a state of " no being,." It means no positive being, it is the absence of existence. So matter cannot exist in it because it has no existnece. So when you say that " matter is not universal in infinite nothingness, " you commit two errors. First nothing can exist in a state of nothingness, not matter, not Angels, not the human soul. Secondly, " nothingness " is neither infinite nor finite, it is nothing, it has no existence, so it can contain no being, no thought, no energy, no other type of existence. Nothing means nothing.
3. Reality cannot be described as a unified whole because that would mean that God would have to be a part of this unified whole. But this cannot be, neither philosophically or theologically. Creation is a limited being or a set of limited beings, both the created corporeal and the created incorporeal. By definition and by Catholic Dogma, God cannot be a part of any " unified " or single reality. God must be regarded as a real Being, but His Being is eternal and infinite. Thus He cannot be a part of unified reality. His Reality is absolutely unlimited and perfect and independent. Ours is absolutely, finite, time bound, imperfect, and dependent and contingent.

4 So " nothingness " cannot exist between elements of reality, discrete or otherwise.

5.The impetus that causes motion may be given by God or by a material agent. If by God, it is through an exercise of his will, not by " information. " If the impetus is from a material agent, it comes from the application of energy, it is not by " information."

Well, you see why I objected to this line of discussion and I have only just started. But that will be enough by way of explanation.

You started off on this with good enough intentions. Like many, you hoped to reconcile Faith with science or, more properly, some of the interpretations based on certain scientific theories, hoping to persuade skeptics of the reasonableness of Faith. You cannot do that by advancing a false philosophy or theology. And the ground of your argument is wrong. That is why it is dangerous.

It is a mistake to sacrefice sound philosophy to satisfy atheists and skeptics.

Linus2nd