How To Deal With This Old Canard

[oldcelt]

That is precisely what you are doing by assuming God did no more than jump-start the universe and then left its billion-year development entirely **to chance **with the disastrous consequences you have condemned: rape, murder, abortion, war, plague and children who get leukemia at four weeks. That would be the work of a Devil who couldn’t care less about what happens to his unfortunate victims.

To me, that would be the unfortunate consequences of a natural world or terrible humans, not an all-knowing, all-loving, ever-present, all-powerful God.
An unfortunate analogy because jump-starting implies the existence of a motor that has been designed!

You haven’t answered these:

1. What can you prove that is certain beyond all shadow of doubt? I can’t, anymore than you can prove your version of God. However, I believe that observation is on my side.
2. How do you **know **that an accident-free, disease-free world is feasible? When did I ever say it was? The earth is a dangerous place
3. How can you respect a God who either doesn’t know, doesn’t care or cannot rectify what is happening in this world?

Why would I want the Supreme Deity interfering in favor of some and not others? Because observation of the world would tell me that if I believed in an interventionist God. Since I don’t, I respect the Deity for starting creation…a creation that gave me a chance to express myself, to learn, to grow, to maybe help my fellow humans just a little

 

[balto]

I think this is the fatal flaw in the argument. Maybe Tony or Charlemagne can help flesh out why, but this statement (about jump-starting but then pure chance) makes no sense from the point of philosophy.

This is correct. The fatal flaw would be that it supposes that God is either in a state of creating the universe or in a state of watching, but not creating, the universe. It suggests that God has some kind of actualizable potency for creating the universe which would mean that a higher power external to God actualizes this potency. On top of that, it would also mean that God’s existence is contingent, which means He is not unconditional Being. But this is not possible if one conceives of God as ipsum esse subsistens and unchanging pure Act, as Aquinas does. The whole point of Aquinas’ Five Ways is to deduce that some reality such as self-subsistent Being and pure Act must exist, given the nature of everyday realities as being contingent and changing, and the name traditionally given to this reality is “God”. God is a conclusion for Aquinas, not an assumed premise. He then goes on to show how God is identifiable with the Judeo-Christian God revealed from ancient Judaism to Catholicism in his works.

The deistic God (even if He is asserted to be loving) would depend on a higher reality for His existence and change, so it seems that He would not really be God at all, at least not in the Thomistic sense. It seems that speaking of God as “jump-starting the universe” in any way is erroneous thinking, because from God’s point of view He has been creating the universe from eternity, even though the actors within the universe and the universe itself is temporally limited.

 

[oldcelt]

This is correct. The fatal flaw would be that it supposes that God is either in a state of creating the universe or in a state of watching, but not creating, the universe. It suggests that God has some kind of actualizable potency for creating the universe which would mean that a higher power external to God actualizes this potency. On top of that, it would also mean that God’s existence is contingent, which means He is not unconditional Being. But this is not possible if one conceives of God as ipsum esse subsistens and unchanging pure Act, as Aquinas does. The whole point of Aquinas’ Five Ways is to deduce that some reality such as self-subsistent Being and pure Act must exist, given the nature of everyday realities as being contingent and changing, and the name traditionally given to this reality is “God”. God is a conclusion for Aquinas, not an assumed premise. He then goes on to show how God is identifiable with the Judeo-Christian God revealed from ancient Judaism to Catholicism in his works.

The deistic God (even if He is asserted to be loving) would depend on a higher reality for His existence and change, so it seems that He would not really be God at all, at least not in the Thomistic sense. It seems that speaking of God as “jump-starting the universe” in any way is erroneous thinking, because from God’s point of view He has been creating the universe from eternity, even though the actors within the universe and the universe itself is temporally limited.

How did you arrive at those conclusions? As humans we have no idea what God is doing from one of our moments to the next. We also cannot know God’s point of view at any given human moment and we certainly cannot know that he has been creating this universe through all eternity.
God, being an eternal force, has plenty of time (in human terms) to consider and accomplish many things. It is quite possible that there were other universes before the current model, that many more will follow this one, or that God will take some other course.
None of us can know. We can only do our human best to observe the world around us and decide what it all means to us personally.
That is what Thomas was doing with the tools and information available to him. That’s what I am doing with the tools and information at my disposal. Thomas was a human, just like you and me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is what Thomas was doing with the tools and information available to him. That’s what I am doing with the tools and information at my disposal

Here is some more information at your disposal:

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[balto]

How did you arrive at those conclusions? As humans we have no idea what God is doing from one of our moments to the next. We also cannot know God’s point of view at any given human moment and we certainly cannot know that he has been creating this universe through all eternity.

He has to be eternally creating everything that is contingent. Nothing that we know of in our everyday lives exists by nature. The fact that any individual thing exists is an accidental property of that object and not an essential one. So if something does exist, it participates in existence. There has to be an essence which entails existence (i.e. necessary being or as Aquinas calls it, ipsum esse subsistens) for every contingent thing to participate in or nothing would exist. This is commonly referred to as “God.”

Here’s a simple analogy: a piece of paper is not by nature wet. If a particular piece of paper is wet, it is only an accidental property given to it by its participation in wetness (which we can symbolize with water). Separate the water from the paper and the paper ceases to be wet. Separate (I mean this in a figurative rather than spatial sense) a contingent being (does not exist by nature) from necessary being (does exist by nature) and the contingent being ceases to be. This is why God has never stopped creating the universe, because if He did it would have ceased to exist.

God, being an eternal force, has plenty of time (in human terms) to consider and accomplish many things. It is quite possible that there were other universes before the current model, that many more will follow this one, or that God will take some other course.

Yes, it is possible that there are other universes or even that this universe has an infinite past (I don’t think it does, but there’s nothing logically incompatible with an infinite past universe and God as Aquinas famously asserted). But God has eternally willed the totality of creation and does not “change His mind” so-to-speak, at least from His perspective. From our perspective, yes it appears that God changes. But that’s because we’re the ones that are changing, so our relationship to God is constantly changing, but there’s no change in God. That’s a “Cambridge change” from God’s perspective which is really just an illusion of change.

None of us can know. We can only do our human best to observe the world around us and decide what it all means to us personally.

I don’t mean to be a wise guy but how are you certain that all knowledge is uncertain?

 

[oldcelt]

Here is some more information at your disposal:

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

There is a great deal of difference between, “Let there be light,” which any ancient person would have understood, and an in-depth analysis of precisely how the universe began. Besides, it is well known that the ancients were exceptional at astronomical observation, a fact that Jastrow (agnostic) would have known well… Further, to any human being, of any era, you need light to function well.

Now, if they had described the banding of the rings of Saturn, a binary star or black hole…that would have really been something.

Genesis is one of many creation myths created as people tried to understand their existence. It is not science, there are two versions, and neither gives any great detail. Besides, Deists believe that God instituted creation.

 

[oldcelt]

He has to be eternally creating everything that is contingent. Nothing that we know of in our everyday lives exists by nature. The fact that any individual thing exists is an accidental property of that object and not an essential one. So if something does exist, it participates in existence. There has to be an essence which entails existence (i.e. necessary being or as Aquinas calls it, ipsum esse subsistens) for every contingent thing to participate in or nothing would exist. This is commonly referred to as “God.”

Here’s a simple analogy: a piece of paper is not by nature wet. If a particular piece of paper is wet, it is only an accidental property given to it by its participation in wetness (which we can symbolize with water). Separate the water from the paper and the paper ceases to be wet. Separate (I mean this in a figurative rather than spatial sense) a contingent being (does not exist by nature) from necessary being (does exist by nature) and the contingent being ceases to be. This is why God has never stopped creating the universe, because if He did it would have ceased to exist.

Yes, it is possible that there are other universes or even that this universe has an infinite past (I don’t think it does, but there’s nothing logically incompatible with an infinite past universe and God as Aquinas famously asserted). But God has eternally willed the totality of creation and does not “change His mind” so-to-speak, at least from His perspective. From our perspective, yes it appears that God changes. But that’s because we’re the ones that are changing, so our relationship to God is constantly changing, but there’s no change in God. That’s a “Cambridge change” from God’s perspective which is really just an illusion of change.

I don’t mean to be a wise guy but how are you certain that all knowledge is uncertain?

In light of the Big Bang it really isn’t surprising that current items are contingent. Everything that currently exists came from the ultra-dense matter that exploded outward during the Big Bang. So, no need for an ever creating God.

For your final question, I’m not certain that all knowledge is uncertain, only that our knowledge base tends to evolve over time.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is a great deal of difference between, “Let there be light,” which any ancient person would have understood, and an in-depth analysis of precisely how the universe began.

Genesis is one of many creation myths created as people tried to understand their existence. It is not science, there are two versions, and neither gives any great detail. Besides, Deists believe that God instituted creation.

It was only in the 20th century that science came to understand that the universe began with a powerful burst of light. Obviously, Genesis could not have understood the Big Bang as science understands it. But you have to allow that only Genesis in ancient times comes even close to giving an account of creation that is consistent with modern science. And it’s noteworthy that the great insight in the 20th century that led to the Big Bang was a Catholic mathematician/priest.

This might be a heartbreaking coincidence for skeptics of a personal God.

 

[empther]

oldcelt: post 85

Deists believe that God instituted creation.

Actually you don’t.

For thousands of years people thought of ‘gods’ as beings who interacted with humans, or at least the world in some way.
Now you come along and talk about some undefined thing that created the universe but does nothing else with it,
and you call this thing God with a capital G.

You’re not talking about God at all.

 

[tonyrey]

That is precisely what you are doing by assuming God did no more than jump-start the universe and then left its billion-year development entirely

It is more coherent to believe there is no God at all rather than an inexplicably irresponsible jump-starter!

An unfortunate analogy because jump-starting implies the existence of a motor that has been designed…

1. What can you prove

that is certain beyond all shadow of doubt? I can’t, anymore than you can prove your version of God. However, I believe that observation is on my side.

Observation of what?

2. How do you **know **

that an accident-free, disease-free world is feasible? When did I ever say it was? The earth is a dangerous place

Then why do you complain of misfortunes?

3. How can you respect

a God who either doesn’t know, doesn’t care or cannot rectify what is happening in this world? Why would I want the Supreme Deity interfering in favor of some and not others?

To demand absolute equality of treatment for everyone is absurd.

Since I don’t, I respect the Deity for starting creation…a creation that gave me a chance to express myself, to learn, to grow, to maybe help my fellow humans just a little.

You respect a Deity who doesn’t do what you admire in human beings…

 

[oldcelt]

I’m not ignoring anyone. I’m just not well today. You folks stay well and I’ll be back asap.

John

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not ignoring anyone. I’m just not well today. You folks stay well and I’ll be back asap.

John

Sorry about that, John. Have a good rest and listen to soothing music.