If God is completely actual, does that mean

[yppop]

TA:

Yes, but, God does not necessarily have to “create” as in creating new worlds, or new universes. God’s creative tendency also has to do with what we call sustaining. In sustaining, God is continually expanding the s-gaps. He is continually reconfiguring the entire space-framework. All finite things must keep their proper flows, i.e., growth, local motion, coming-to-be, expansion of creatures, expansion of the universe in its totality, the recycling of expired creatures, etc., etc.

He doesn’t get “new” ideas then act on them like creatures embedded in time do. Creation may be the continuous release of an eternal algorithm.

God bless,
jd

JD,
I am enjoying your responses on several threads, especially when you refer to ideas such as “s-gaps”. I like your idea of a “sustaining” God. In the model of dual reality, direct sustainment is provided by God’s mind as the “impetus” part of the holonomic mechanism, in other words, cosmological time does not continue - the cosmic s-frame does not increment - unless God allows it. This is how He sustains the universe and every thing in it.

On the other hand God creates what and when He decides and He does this by inserting a specific configuration (a specific initial condition) that leads to a particular end result. At the explicate level, such an end result is often observed as a scientific discovery, but is really a “creation event” at the implicate level. All “actualized” ideas have their source in the Mind of God; I like to think of the conduit from God to a human mind as “radial insight”. This is how God creates.

** God both creates and sustains.**

Keep up your “tangential insight” (the conduit among human minds); it is another form of sustainment.

Yppop

 

[JDaniel]

JD,
I am enjoying your responses on several threads, especially when you refer to ideas such as “s-gaps”. I like your idea of a “sustaining” God. In the model of dual reality, direct sustainment is provided by God’s mind as the “impetus” part of the holonomic mechanism, in other words, cosmological time does not continue - the cosmic s-frame does not increment - unless God allows it. This is how He sustains the universe and every thing in it.

On the other hand God creates what and when He decides and He does this by inserting a specific configuration (a specific initial condition) that leads to a particular end result. At the explicate level, such an end result is often observed as a scientific discovery, but is really a “creation event” at the implicate level. All “actualized” ideas have their source in the Mind of God; I like to think of the conduit from God to a human mind as “radial insight”. This is how God creates.

** God both creates and sustains.**

Keep up your “tangential insight” (the conduit among human minds); it is another form of sustainment.

Yppop

Yppop:

Please feel free to wade in at any time. I am testing out largely your ideas in this arena. They have helped me get a better foothold on joining my (well, the Church’s) philosophical ideas with physics and mathematics.

Thank you for your support.

God bless,
jd

 

[TarkanAttila]

JD,
I am enjoying your responses on several threads, especially when you refer to ideas such as “s-gaps”. I like your idea of a “sustaining” God. In the model of dual reality, direct sustainment is provided by God’s mind as the “impetus” part of the holonomic mechanism, in other words, cosmological time does not continue - the cosmic s-frame does not increment - unless God allows it. This is how He sustains the universe and every thing in it.

On the other hand God creates what and when He decides and He does this by inserting a specific configuration (a specific initial condition) that leads to a particular end result. At the explicate level, such an end result is often observed as a scientific discovery, but is really a “creation event” at the implicate level. All “actualized” ideas have their source in the Mind of God; I like to think of the conduit from God to a human mind as “radial insight”. This is how God creates.

** God both creates and sustains.**

Keep up your “tangential insight” (the conduit among human minds); it is another form of sustainment.

Yppop

Most of these ideas are a tad over my head. But they are fascinating to watch pass above me.

JDaniel:What I meant, though, by my question in my last post is: how do you figure God is a divine repairman? What logic and evidence in the universe do we have that God is maintaining it? Entropy doesn’t appear to be one of these. :-/

 

[belorg]

Actually, yes, you are making this case. You claim God must be the God of Deism - one that is always moving along a straight line of action, never interacting with His creation in any way that might be construed as Christian (or the kind found in any other religion).

Thyat’s what I am claiming, yes, but it has nothing to do with God having to stop in order to do something else.

However, who are you to say that God cannot interact with humans, make the Milky Way galaxy, expand the Universe, and judge the living and the dead all “at the same time”?

Because God , doing all these things ‘at the same time’ entails a B-theory of time, in which there is nothing to ‘judge’, ‘expand’ etc. The Milky Way, humans etc. are either ternally present or completely detremined by God’s First Act, which as far as I am concerned, may be a very complex act, but in any case, all the ‘creating’ 'judging ’ or whatever God may do is comprised in this one Prime Move.

Therefore, it’s perfectly possible He could have been creating the Universe while He was talking to Adam and Eve while He was guiding Moses through the desert while He was dying on the Cross while He was taking flesh in the hands of that preacher in Lanciano. It’s just very difficult, if not impossible, to envision how such simultaneous actions could happen.

?No, that’s not possible. ‘Adam’ is a part of what God created in his Firsdt Move.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I don’t find that to be an absolute necessity of the logic. Although, since God’s activity is His thought and His will - and I’m sure He does not sleep - I don’t see any reason why what you say should not be so.

It IS an absolute necessity of the logic.

There is no doubt of a similarity between the two. In my opinion, the Deist theology is that God sets everything in motion, then it all remains in motion while He never gives it a second look, or a nudge. The Theist insists that, in remaining coterminous with His creation, God can, and does, influence it if and when He wishes.

The poinr is that the Thomist God cannot possibly give somethiig ‘a second look’. Giving a second look is a change. And God cannot do anything ‘when He wishes’ because ‘when he wishes’ entails temporality and God does not have temporality.

The billiard ball notion is an analogy, and a poor one at that. That is not the sort of motion Aquinas and Aristotle had in mind. The kind of motion they had in mind was a series of motion. But instead of the series being esseentially non-subordinated, as in a billiard ball striking another billiard ball, then, another, then another, until all of the balls rather swiftly come to rest, they were talking about an essentially subordinated series, a series that does not shortly come to rest but continues ad infinitum.

There is no such thing as a series that shortly comes to rest. That’s the basis of Aristotean physics, and it has been proven wrong since.

The only way such a series can come to full stop, is if God were to annihilate it. An example would be biological matter. Biological matter never comes to complete rest. As a creature passes away, its matter is converted, used and passed on by other creatures, in a never ending series. Upon the universe’s achievement of absolute entropy, that series may, finally, come to an end.

It does not finally come to an end. There will never be a time when ‘nothing’ exists.

So, you see, Aquinas and Aristotle were patently correct! Your statement that “a billiard ball, once set in motion, never stops,” is non-demonstrable, at least in this universe.

That the billiard ball never stops is a basis law of physics, which nobody who has any sort of understanding of physics would deny.

There is no place where pure Newtonian motion can be demonstrated, although, if there were, it could be. But, that would be a place where absolutely nothing else exists except the billiard ball.

It does not matter whether it can be demonstrated or not.

 

[JDaniel]

Most of these ideas are a tad over my head. But they are fascinating to watch pass above me.

JDaniel:What I meant, though, by my question in my last post is: how do you figure God is a divine repairman? What logic and evidence in the universe do we have that God is maintaining it? Entropy doesn’t appear to be one of these. :-/

TA:

We have more than enough evidence to know that we, human beings, along with every other thing in the universe, consist of atoms. The next question is, what do “atoms” consist of? Well, they consist of a nucleus and at least one electron. Where does this electron reside? It resides in a shell that is, on average, 50,000 times larger than the nucleus of that same atom. What, in that shell, imparts “mass?” Nothing? Yes, “nothing!” Now, what are neutrons, protons and electrons? Well, they too consist of essentially nothing. They are point particles. Now, what are point particles? Like the point of a line, they are dimensionless.

So, we have here a shell wherein “nothing” exists, except a nucleus and some electrons that, for all intents and purposes, are also “nothing.” This begs a further question: how, then, are atoms responsible for “mass?” Interesting question, is it not?

Possible answers, either an Intelligent Maker of these things is tricking us into believing they have “mass,” or, an Intelligent Maker is, itself, supplying “mass.” Either way, absolutely none of the constituents of atoms, and thus, uni-cellular and multi-cellular organisms, and crystals, i.e., plant, animal, and mineral stuff, can impart “mass.”

This is only the beginning. There’s lots more. If you can get a copy of David Bohm’s book, entitled, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, you will start to understand and form your own necessary conclusions. There’s no way the so-called real constituents of matter could possibly organize themselves into mass, not to mention, plants, animals and minerals, without an intellectual principle

It’s not particularly easy, but you have a mind more than capable of understanding it, in my opinion. I learned much of this by asking the right question, then another poster grabbed me and provided answers and sources. There are two threads I’d like to point you to: Space? and “God exists, but how?” They’re a little earlier in the succession of posts herein. You can search for them and read them. Another fairly intelligent source is a poster whose handle is “Greylorn.” Follow his responses as well. He and Yppop have been considering this stuff from the point of view of Physics, and the physical, for many, many years. Their conclusions are similar. That’s all I’ll say.

Both Yppop and Greylorn are probably listening. If you have serious questions, one or the other will answer you. I will warn you: their answers may differ, and often do. But, they are critical thinkers, which many of us aren’t. (Use your best English and spelling when discussing anything with Greylorn. Poor syntax and spelling are pet peeves for him! ) I think Greylorn has recently produced a book. He was supposed to have informed me when it was out, but, he has not. Probably too busy.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It IS an absolute necessity of the logic.

Belorg:

If I were to say, “I don’t find it to be absolutely necessary from the logic,” an infinity of times, will I win this debate?

The point is that the Thomist God cannot possibly give somethiig ‘a second look’. Giving a second look is a change.

I gave you the carefully thought-out Catholic perspective on this in our last discussions. Perhaps you missed that? Therefore, I respectfully disagree with you.

And God cannot do anything ‘when He wishes’ because ‘when he wishes’ entails temporality and God does not have temporality.

Belorg, we mere humans, do not have the concepts or the words to properly convey what needs to be conveyed. Now, you’re nit-picking - and I’m in my house!

There is no such thing as a series that shortly comes to rest. That’s the basis of Aristotean physics, and it has been proven wrong since.

Well, please allow me to disagree. If you will only follow me to the pool parlor, I’ll prove them, and you, wrong.

It does not finally come to an end. There will never be a time when ‘nothing’ exists.

And you know this? How?

That the billiard ball never stops is a basis law of physics, which nobody who has any sort of understanding of physics would deny.

Did you read my post? I spoke of a non-subordinated series, not a subordinated series. It is irrelevant whether the billiard ball is decaying, or the earth is itself in motion. That series is done. Or, at least, the algorithms for that burst are no longer supplying any impetus to the series.

It does not matter whether it can be demonstrated or not.

But, wait, you said that it could!

Oh, and re-read Newton’s law.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Belorg:

In case you can’t find it, or don’t wish to spend any time looking for it, here it is:

"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Projectiles continue in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are continually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in freer spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time."

God bless,
jd

 

[ivebeenshown]

God gives life and existence. This act is eternal between the Three Holy Persons and we experience this in a temporal way. That we were “created” signifies that we perceive a beginning to our own existence, but this existence is eternally given by the Lord. To whom or what it is given and when or where is accidental and not substantial to His being – except, of course, in the case of the Three Persons…

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

In case you can’t find it, or don’t wish to spend any time looking for it, here it is:

"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.
​

Which proves my point.

I have no problem with people defending their faith, JD, but Newton’s law proves Aristotle was dead wrong. So, either reject Newton’s law or reject Thomism.​