If God can be 'uncreated & unchanging', why not the universe too?"

[Aloysium]

Jesus wrote nothing. The only recorded incident was His writing in the sand. Christ lives and can live within us. When He was one among us He established His church, and left us with the Holy Spirit to guide us. The knowledge we have of God is personal, grounded in the relationship we each have with Him as part of a community dedicated to doing His will, which is love.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

Jesus wrote nothing.

I’m surprised that you made this assertion. Surely we do not, and cannot, know this.

 

[ynotzap]

Because I think that God responds to our prayers, especially the prayers of the Mass and so it is a serious error to say that He does not respond and He is unMoved by the prayers of Consecration at the Mass.

For the sake of viewers, I did not imply that God does not respond to prayer, for He encourages us to pray unceasingly. No power in the universe can move God, not even prayer. But He wants to move us, and does by giving us the grace to pray, drawing us to Himself, for we could do nothing without God. He moves first in our salvation, we do not move Him. Tomstone does not understand what saying that God is the Unmoved Mover means and how it is applied to reality, even prayer Its OK to see it the way he does, it is simple and uncomplicated. But he judges as a serious error, and it would be for him because he does not comprehend the Ontological application, and downplays it. Calling it a serious error is his interpretation, and at first sight it would appear that way. If one does not understand leave it to those who’s job it is to understand, that’s what teachers do, and the Church has that job especially on faith, and morals.

 

[Tomdstone]

For the sake of viewers, I did not imply that God does not respond to prayer, for He encourages us to pray unceasingly. No power in the universe can move God, not even prayer. But He wants to move us, and does by giving us the grace to pray, drawing us to Himself, for we could do nothing without God. He moves first in our salvation, we do not move Him. Tomstone does not understand what saying that God is the Unmoved Mover means and how it is applied to reality, even prayer Its OK to see it the way he does, it is simple and uncomplicated. But he judges as a serious error, and it would be for him because he does not comprehend the Ontological application, and downplays it. Calling it a serious error is his interpretation, and at first sight it would appear that way. If one does not understand leave it to those who’s job it is to understand, that’s what teachers do, and the Church has that job especially on faith, and morals.

You say that God is unmoved, then you say He responds to prayer. Well, what does respond mean except to reply or to react either of which involves being in some sense moved by the prayer. The proof is that if the prayer had not been said, there would be no Consecration of the Eucharist. Think about it. The Bread and the Wine are just that before the prayer of the Consecration. As the prayer of the Mass is being said, God comes down from heaven and transforms the Bread and Wine into the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus. The miracle of Transubstantiation occurs since God responds to the prayers of the Mass. Of course, God is not required to move or to respond to prayer, but the Catholic teaching is that He does perform the miracle of the Eucharist at every Mass.
At every Catholic Mass, there is real movement and real change which is a result of God responding to our prayers.
The allegation being made to the contrary is that I have not reached some sort of a higher level of ontological knowledge,

 

[John_Martin]

You say that God is unmoved, then you say He responds to prayer. Well, what does respond mean except to reply or to react either of which involves being in some sense moved by the prayer. The proof is that if the prayer had not been said, there would be no Consecration of the Eucharist. Think about it. The Bread and the Wine are just that before the prayer of the Consecration. As the prayer of the Mass is being said, God comes down from heaven and transforms the Bread and Wine into the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus. The miracle of Transubstantiation occurs since God responds to the prayers of the Mass. Of course, God is not required to move or to respond to prayer, but the Catholic teaching is that He does perform the miracle of the Eucharist at every Mass.
At every Catholic Mass, there is real movement and real change which is a result of God responding to our prayers.
The allegation being made to the contrary is that I have not reached some sort of a higher level of ontological knowledge,

Actually, the prayers at the consecration are extraneous additions - the consecration, the transubstantiation happens when Jesus’s words are spoken by the priest’s mouth, meaning Jesus is speaking the words literally himself at that moment. It does not happen in answer to any prayer, although we do pray in relation to it, but not to move God to do it.

 

[ynotzap]

You say that God is unmoved, then you say He responds to prayer. Well, what does respond mean except to reply or to react either of which involves being in some sense moved by the pray

Do you know what movement is? Do you agree that God is the ultimate source of all motion? If you do then how does it apply to prayer, or do you think it doesn’t apply to prayer?
Do you understand the argument for the existence of God from motion? Is that some elite knowledge that is inaccessible to anyone who wants to understand it?

Tombstone:

The proof is that if the prayer had not been said, there would be no Consecration of the Eucharist. Think about it. The Bread and the Wine are just that before the prayer of the Consecration. As the prayer of the Mass is being said, God comes down from heaven and transforms the Bread and Wine into the Body, Blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus. The miracle of Transubstantiation occurs since God responds to the prayers of the Mass. Of course, God is not required to move or to respond to prayer, but the Catholic teaching is that He does perform the miracle of the Eucharist at every Mass.
At every Catholic Mass, there is real movement and real change which is a result of God responding to our prayers.

We are secondary movers, not the First Mover, We could not even pray if we were not moved to pray, do we move ourselves? Do we believe on our own, or is belief a gift ? If we do as Jesus commands, did we move Him, or did He move us? If we didn’t do as He commands, would the priest be able to consecrate. Jesus moved first in setting the conditions for consecration to take place, who moved first, the priest or Jesus. When another uses the words of consecration in prayer that is not a Priest, does Jesus perform His miracle of transubstantiation? It is not the priest, or some other that moves Jesus, God-man, but He who moves the priest in Faith. If prayer moves Jesus, how is it that the request in prayer sometimes are not answered as requested? (but I maintain that if the prayer is sincere, God will answer, because He wants to answer, in His own way. Yes there is movement and change taking place because God wants to respond, not that anything we can do makes Him respond. God moves first We pray because He has caused us to pray, He moves us first. God answers prayers because He wants to answer, not because we have some power over Him.

Tombstone:

The allegation being made to the contrary is that I have not reached some sort of a higher level of ontological knowledge,

Answer that for yourself.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is not only our common sense, but even Holy Scripture tells us that God was moved by prayer:
2 Chronicles 33:13
13 He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.
New International Version
And when he prayed to him, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.
New Living Translation
And when he prayed, the LORD listened to him and was moved by his request. So the LORD brought Manasseh back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh finally realized that the LORD alone is God!
English Standard Version
He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.
New American Standard Bible
When he prayed to Him, He was moved by his entreaty and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.
New American Standard 1977
When he prayed to Him, He was moved by his entreaty and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.

 

[John_Martin]

It is not only our common sense, but even Holy Scripture tells us that God was moved by prayer:
2 Chronicles 33:13
13 He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.
New International Version
And when he prayed to him, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.
New Living Translation
And when he prayed, the LORD listened to him and was moved by his request. So the LORD brought Manasseh back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh finally realized that the LORD alone is God!
English Standard Version
He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.
New American Standard Bible
When he prayed to Him, He was moved by his entreaty and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.
New American Standard 1977
When he prayed to Him, He was moved by his entreaty and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.

I like this reply;
Okay, now the Douay-Rheims Bible has this reading, however, with no mention of being moved.
“13 And he entreated him, and besought him earnestly: and he heard his prayer, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom, and Manasses knew that the Lord was God.”

And a transliteration from the Hebrew shows that the word “moved” does not exist in this verse for Jews, nor for Jesus when they read these words in Hebrew:
“And he was prayed to, and he was entreated, and he heard his request, and brought him again to Jerusalem, to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD God”

So, with this verse, at least, you have the discretion of your listed translators trying to tell us that:
when a Jew hears this:
"And he was prayed to, and he was entreated, and he heard his request"
The Jew is really thinking this understanding:
"He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea "

But actually, it is not there to translate in the first place.

I do believe there are places in the Bible where you will find it saying, even in the original and in Catholic tradition of the translation, that “God is moved to compassion or mercy”.
So, in addition to seeking this confirmation of God being moved, also seek (as a good student of the teachers of the Catholic Church) to find understanding of the teaching that God is un-moved.
As a true student, your words are, “My Church says God is moved to compassion, so it is true; and my Church says God is unmoved, so that also is true. Now I must find out (from the Church, who will teach me only truth,) how God is known to them as moved by prayer and fully unmoved, and I shall know God the same way.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is it illogical for the universe to be eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible?..but not illogical for God to have those attributes?

Why does the universe have to have a beginning and not God? What would happen if the universe DID in fact always exist?

(Without resorting to scientific evidence. I’m asking from a purely philosophical point of view)

Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we know that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe were infinitely old, then it would have ALREADY run out of light and heat, etc. The fact that this is NOT the case points to the fact that the universe is NOT infinitely old. Therefore, it had a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning, then why? What caused it? These arguments can be viewed this way:

Kalam Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Leibniz’s Contingency Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I

1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence either in the necessity of its existence or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe.

Kreeft’s Contingency Argument
strangenotions.com/the-contingency-argument-for-god/

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Teleological (Fine-Tuning) Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

1. The universe appears to be finely-tuned to support life.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
5. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

CONCLUSION

It’s reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a bar of chocolate does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a candy maker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a candy bar, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, then the universe had a cause.

Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary cannot be part of the universe, exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.

Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer.

This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call “God”.

 

[Aloysium]

I think that everything proceeded as described poetically in Genesis.
Creation was a step-wise process in which, after the first “day”, the new was formed from what had been created before.
In other words, the structure that underlies the cosmos and which the laws of science describe, was not present at the very beginning (except in the mind of our Creator).
It was a different simpler universe of light, from which God brought forth atoms and then molecules.
And, life is of a different order than that described by relativity and quantum mechanics.

God is one throughout and beyond all time, and it is from eternity that He brings forth creation.
The designing happens now as it did at the beginning and will at the end.

This now in which we here dwell, is basically the same now that was at the start, seeing an “infinity” of transformations, that have led to the universe as it is known in this moment.
This is just as every point in the universe is at the centre from which it “evolved”.
Now and here, we find ourselves, simple in our capacity to see, understand and act as one being, albeit also “infinitely” complex.
I find it far-fetched and not well thought out to believe that the primordial dimensionless moment was structured in such a way as to contain this potential.

All that science will ever be able to tell us, if it can, is what happened; the ultimate how and why, requires a revelation from, a Connection with the Mind and Hand that brings it into being.

 

[Tomdstone]

Jesus is speaking the words literally himself at that moment.

If in the Mass, Jesus is speaking the words of Consecration, why did Jesus sometimes say the Blood was shed for all instead of saying that the Blood was shed for many. After all, the correct translation of pro multis is for many. Why would Jesus, who is God, speak using an incorrect translation? I thought that God was all perfect and would not make a mistake in the translation of pro multis.

 

[PRmerger]

The universe could be uncaused but it cannot be eternal.

That is correct.

Science tells us this: the universe had a beginning.

And logic and philosophy tells us this, also: “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.”–David Hume
web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course…quiryXIIii.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Because the universe cannot explain it’s own existence, so it requires an explanation.

Indeed, as Richard Dawkins, curiously, conceded, the question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is the “trump card” of the Believer.

nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

 

[Tomdstone]

Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we know that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe were infinitely old, then it would have ALREADY run out of light and heat, etc. The fact that this is NOT the case points to the fact that the universe is NOT infinitely old. Therefore, it had a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning, then why? What caused it? These arguments can be viewed this way:

Kalam Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Leibniz’s Contingency Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I

1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence either in the necessity of its existence or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe.

Kreeft’s Contingency Argument
strangenotions.com/the-contingency-argument-for-god/

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Teleological (Fine-Tuning) Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

1. The universe appears to be finely-tuned to support life.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
5. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

CONCLUSION

It’s reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. For example, a bar of chocolate does not simply exist on its own or bring itself into existence. The cause of its existence is a candy maker. This principle of causation holds regardless of how big or small the thing in question may be – whether it is a candy bar, a house, a planet or the entire universe. And if the universe began to exist, then the universe had a cause.

Further, if something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. So, if the universe – that is, the sum of all physical matter, space, and time – exists, there must also exist whatever is necessary for the universe to exist. But, that which is necessary cannot be part of the universe, exist within it or be bounded by space and time because nothing that is within the universe can bring itself into existence. In other words, whatever is necessary for the universe to exist must be outside the universe and transcend both space and time. So, if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause which is outside the universe itself and which transcends both space and time.

Going further still, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe which was necessary for the existence of life suggests the existence of an intelligent designer.

This intelligent designer which exists outside the universe and beyond space and time is what we call “God”.

There may be other arguments which are convincing, but non-believers are not buying these particular arguments all of which they find unconvincing as has been pointed out previously.

 

[PRmerger]

There may be other arguments which are convincing, but non-believers are not buying these particular arguments all of which they find unconvincing as has been pointed out previously.

There are arguments for the benefit and efficacy of immunizations, but, curiously, some folks are recusant to facts and wish to believe in something based on blind faith.

Kind of like these poor stupid dwarves in CS Lewis’ “The Last Battle”. They are in a magnificent paradise, and have been given evidence for that fact, but, stupidly they choose to believe they are in a dark, fetid stable.

Lucy led the way and soon they could all see the Dwarfs. They had a very odd look. They weren’t strolling about or enjoying themselves (although the cords with which they had been tied seemed to have vanished) nor were they lying down and having a rest. They were sitting very close together in a little circle facing one another. They never looked round or took any notice of the humans till Lucy and Tirian were almost near enough to touch them. Then the Dwarfs all cocked their heads as if they couldn’t see anyone but were listening hard and trying to guess by the sound what was happening.

“Look out!” said one of them in a surly voice. “Mind where you’re going. Don’t walk into our faces!”

“All right!” said Eustace indignantly. “We’re not blind. We’ve got eyes in our heads.”

“They must be darn good ones if you can see in here,” said the same Dwarf whose name was Diggle.

“In where?” asked Edmund.

“Why you bone-head, in here of course,” said Diggle. “In this pitch-black, poky, smelly little hole of a stable.”

“Are you blind?” said Tirian.

“Ain’t we all blind in the dark!” said Diggle.

“But it isn’t dark, you poor stupid Dwarfs,” said Lucy. “Can’t you see? Look up! Look round! Can’t you see the sky and the trees and the flowers? Can’t you see me?”

“How in the name of all Humbug can I see what ain’t there? And how can I see you any more than you can see me in this pitch darkness?”

“But I can see you,” said Lucy. “I’ll prove I can see you. You’ve got a pipe in your mouth.”

“Anyone that knows the smell of baccy could tell that,” said Diggle.

“Oh the poor things! This is dreadful,” said Lucy. Then she had an idea. She stopped and picked some wild violets. “Listen, Dwarf,” she said. “Even if your eyes are wrong, perhaps your nose is all right: can you smell that?” She leaned across and held the fresh, damp flowers to Diggle’s ugly nose. But she had to jump back quickly in order to avoid a blow from his hard little fist.

“None of that!” he shouted. “How dare you! What do you mean by shoving a lot of filthy stable-litter in my face? There was a thistle in it too. It’s like your sauce! And who are you anyway?”

So whatever it is that makes folks find unconvincing…that’s their issues.

Just present the arguments and they stand on their own merit.

 

[Tomdstone]

Kind of like these poor stupid dwarves in CS Lewis’ .

You can call insulting names to try and bolster your argument, but unfortunately, the non-believers will not be convinced by this.

 

[PRmerger]

You can call insulting names to try and bolster your argument, but unfortunately, the non-believers will not be convinced by this.

You mean CS Lewis is using insulting names?

I guess you could say that. But if you did, you’d be making a really curious objection.

I’ve never really heard anyone find it objectionable that Lewis had a character call the dwarves “stupid”, but, hey, if you want to start a thread on this and state your vociferous objection to it, go for it.

 

[John_Martin]

There may be other arguments which are convincing, but non-believers are not buying these particular arguments all of which they find unconvincing as has been pointed out previously.

First, reasonable arguments are not meant to convince appetites that do not want the arguments’ contents to be truth.
Second, Randy was answering Ben, the OP, who is Catholic.
Third, Randy was not citing any divine revelation, but showing reasoned conclusions that have to be true because they are fully reasonable conclusions. The only reason for not accepting them is because one does not “want” them to be true.

 

[ynotzap]

There are hidden obstacles in one’s mind (soul) that prevent one from seeing the truth, it is not intentional like the spiritual condition of St,Paul before his conversion to Christianity. It took Jesus to “enlighten” him, and when He did he experienced great remorse, and greater commitment to the truth so much so that he gave his complete life to Jesus, and led many to Him as an Apostle to the Gentiles We all suffer from this condition, and Jesus reserves this condition just for us, to let us know that He is the only Savior in our lives, nothing else.

 

[Nixbits]

John Martin:

First, reasonable arguments are not meant to convince appetites that do not want the arguments’ contents to be truth.
Second, Randy was answering Ben, the OP, who is Catholic.
Third, Randy was not citing any divine revelation, but showing reasoned conclusions that have to be true because they are fully reasonable conclusions. The only reason for not accepting them is because one does not “want” them to be true.

John, I’m sure it will not come as a surprise to you that the four arguments cited by Randy Carson are not universally accepted as true. Many people have found fault with both the premises and/or the reasoning in each of them. So I contend that another reason for someone not accepting them is because the person believes them to be unjustified.