J
JDaniel
Guest
True
True
True
True
No. Form confers species and differentiation. If God were “form” then we would be bits and piece of him. That would be pantheism. IMHO.
God bless,
jd
- Status
God bless,
jd
C
catholictiger
Guest
I think you are correct about the last one my fault.
C
catholictiger
Guest
yes you are correct simple wording changes the entire meaning of that statement.
we agree I just worded it wrong
my gault on that as well I’m trying to pull this stuff out from my memory bank lol
I think what may help you see what I’m trying to get at is what is your definition of nothingness. I believe nothingness to mean you have no exience there is no matter, (maybe potency but that doesn’t matter as far as God goes), no act and so on and so forth. Practually there is nothing in nothingness. God is something (well God is existence) so he really isn’t something but that doesn’t make it nothing.
my simple point is that because God is existence he can’t be like nothingness.
I personally don’t think there is ever nothing either, maybe I’m wrong but God is something (sorta kinda hard to explain what god is) and because God always IS this makes it to where there is never nothing. Scientist talk about “nothing” but their “nothing” has stuff in it that isn’t “nothing”
i noticed I kinda worded that badly
let me try again
God is pure existence. Existence is at the opposite end from nothing. So God is at the opposite end of nothing. Or God is pure existence, pure existence = Infinity, Nothing = 0, Infinity is at the other end of the number line then 0 meaning existence is no where close to nothing.
I don’t think I’m over thinking it, I don’t see how you can say God is “like” nothing. maybe I’m confused at what your trying to get at.
L
Linux
Guest
Its not that God has no essence, but rather Gods essence is his existence. They are the same thing in God.
L
Linux
Guest
Second Article: Whether God is composed of matter and form?
“Aquinas rejects the position that would view God as having both matter and form; rather, God is only pure form. First, God cannot have matter, because the nature of matter is to be in potentiality (in potentia), but Aquinas concluded earlier that God was pure act (purus actus) with no potentiality insofar as God is the first efficient cause (Ia Q2 art. 3). It follows that God could not be matter, for otherwise he would have potentiality. Second, whatever is composed of matter and form owes its perfection and goodness to form and not matter. What he means is that matter participates in form and so its goodness and perfection is participated in, insofar as matter participates in form and so has goodness and perfection. But God’s goodness is not a participated goodness and so God cannot have matter, but must be form only. Third, because every agent acts by its form and because God is the first agent in the sense of being the first efficient cause. It follows that God must be form only: “Therefore whatever is primarily and essentially an agent must be primarily and essentially form. Now God is the first agent, since He is the first efficient cause.” Since God is not acted upon but is “primarily and essentially” an agent, God must be form only because whatever has matter can be acted upon by definition. He concludes that the essence of God is to be form and not to be composed of matter and form.”
abu.nb.ca/courses/grphil/philrel/AquinasLecture.htm
L
Linux
Guest
He has a pet theory.
J
JDaniel
Guest
CT:
All of our lives, throughout all of our schooling, we have been taught that “nothing” is kind of like a chair in a room. There’s no other things in that room. For all intents and purposes, the walls, ceiling, and floor are essentially the inner surfaces of a surrounding body. So, they are irrelevant, in this scenario. That described, we would both say that there is a chair in that room. Now, remove that chair, and close up the room. Now, we would say that there’s nothing in that room.
But, that isn’t true is it? Even though he’s invisible, there’s God in that room and there’s Space. Forget the air; let’s say that we pulled all of the air out of the room as we left with the chair. Still, there’s nothing in that room. The scientist would say, but there’s more than that. There’s trillions of quantum particles in there. Now, pretend that our room is a lead, or 18-10 stainless steel box, that is 10 inches thick. Now, we’ve removed any photons. But, taking it a step further, lets say that we have a way to remove all of the quantum particles as well. Now, we could say there’s nothing in that room, and a scientist would mean it.
But, you and I know there’s more in there, don’t we? For one thing, there’s space, i.e., pure distension. The chair would go back in there and would displace nothing. Right?
Let’s look at that last sentence: “The chair would go back in there and displace nothing.” But, wait. God’s in there, too. (And, in a lot more, such as the walls, the ceiling, and the floor.) If You or I were to say, “There’s nothing in that room,” knowing full well that God is in there, somehow, what would we infer? Well, we would not infer that God does not exist, even though we can’t sense God, would we? But, we’ve been telling everyone, “There’s nothing in that room.” I don’t want to make the normal, silly distinctions people usually make because I wasn’t wrong in either statement. There’s nothing in that room; and, there’s God in that room. Just two different view points. Both having equal veracity and power.
I’m assuming that this has been confusing. I can’t help that. To fully grasp God and understand physics, confusion will abound! Consider nothingness as really a plenum. God is in constant contiguity with everything - inside and out. That’s how he moves things, and causes everything. But, it’s more than that. We are essentially nothing more than 3-d holograms. We believe we have mass and solidity. We really don’t. And physicists are more and more accepting that conclusion. Now, think that through a bit more. If we are actually nothing more than extraordinarily high definition holograms, where do we exist? I contend our “forms,” i.e. “souls,” exist in the Mind of God, which is Infinite Nothingness. We exist on two levels, the explicate level (as a body-form composite) and the implicate level (as a soul with a body). God does everything he does at the implicate level, but we perceive and science measures, at the explicate level. You’ll see much better descriptions of this from Yppop, so keep your eyes open.
That’s the best I can do, in limited space. Please ask questions. But, don’t ask what the average annual rainfall is in the Amazon basin as I have no idea.
Now you’re using that noggin!
The antithesis of existence is non-existence, not “nothing.” “Nothing” is the antithesis of “something.” But there is never nothing. Even scientists get that right!
Please do not be shy to ask any question at all. I am not speaking for the Church, I am only speaking as an unworthy child of God. I hope.
God bless,
jd
L
Linux
Guest
The chair would take up space. Displace it if you like.
When people say there is nothing in a room, they don’t mean there is an absence of reality in the room. Rather they mean there is an absence of all the possible things that could be in that room taking up space.
There is no good reason to use nothing as a description of God. It will simply lead to confusion where there need not be any.
L
Linux
Guest
The terms are used interchangeably.
J
JerryZ
Guest
Well I think that you got yourself a bit of a conundrum, so you postulate that “space” is nothing.
And yet it is obvious from direct scientific observation that “space” interacts with matter.
The proof was first derived from the observation of the bending of light passing close to our sun.
Also a black hole will fold space and light cannot escape from it. So Space is tightly coupled with matter.
In order to the photons of light to be forced to not travel in a straight line.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Linux:
Well, would it? If the chair is itself 99.999999999…% space, how is it taking up room, or displacing space?
That will be a sticking point, as I disagree. There’s good scientific, and logical, reason for using that word. I’m not interested in mincing words for it any more. If it turns out that “nothingness” is not the best word, then I’ll look at a better word. Until then, I know that by calling God “Infinite Nothingness,” I do not mean what many people preconceive that it means. And, I’ll be happy to explain that to them - over and over, if I have to. Either they’ll have to get past it, or they’'ll be left where they are - with about half of them (and growing), wallowing in non-belief in God (which has nothing to do with me, or anyone else, calling Him [Infinite] Nothingness).
In the mean time, I can’t think of a more appropriate word. Can you? Can we discuss your “better word?”
God bless,
jd
I
inocente
Guest
What case are you resting? You don’t like small numbers?If the minus sign bothers you, rewrite it without one:
1.67262158 × 10[SUP]-27[/SUP] =
1.67262158 / 10[SUP]27[/SUP] =
0.000…0000167262158 kg
JDaniel;10097971:
Then raise your dissatisfaction with Oxford University Press.
I’m all at sea, completely lost. How about you give your definition of motion so I can see your point?
Again, it’s a standard published definition used by physicists worldwide. You seem to be saying everyone is out of step but you.
That’s not science, they’re speculative blogs.
It’s the state which has the lowest energy possible. That’s the scientific definition, but I’m getting the impression you don’t do science.What do we expect when we cause a vacuum in a bell jar that has, inside it, a tiny, sealed balloon? What do we expect when an astronaut tears a hole in his spacesuit? Doesn’t the term “quantum vacuum” seem like a paltry representation of reality to you? Unless it means, “not really a vacuum at all.”
J
JDaniel
Guest
Linux:
But people also use “alot” and “a lot” interchangeably. Does that mean that they aren’t mildly illiterate?
God bless,
jd
I
inocente
Guest
Next time you’re in a mall, ask people if they even know who they are. Bet most won’t.
I
inocente
Guest
Ah, thanks, your theory now sounds less arbitrary.
- You want the space from which matter is derived to be discrete, but both relativity and quantum mechanics describe space (and time) as continuous. We could speculate that combining the theories may require some kind of discrete space but I’d have thought the odds are slim, although it’s way outside my comfort zone.
- It’s also highly speculative to say that the universe is a computer. I know Paul Davies is popular for his mystic shots in the dark, but to me that’s all they are. It seems unwarranted that rather than just doing what comes naturally, every one of the gazillions of particles on planet earth alone is continuously calculating its motion (or having it calculated by a mainframe in the sky or whatever).
- You say “projecting the irrationals defines continuous space” but then call continuous space “infinite nothingness” – that huge set of irrational numbers that defined the space magically disappeared in between the sentences.
- You say “Only God and continuous space can be infinite in extent and infinitely divisible.” It isn’t at all clear why only those two share those properties, how the properties connect them, or what it means to say God is infinitely divisible.
- You wouldn’t be Catholic without having a duality somewhere . Does relativity still work with two spaces?
- If your theory says something meaningful or inspirational about God, or relates in any way to the God of scripture, it’s flown straight over my head.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Inocente:What case are you resting? You don’t like small numbers?
Nope! I like small numbers. I have no bias.
I prefer Aquinas’ definition. It, at least, does not tell me that ‘motion’ is ‘motion’.
A couple of questions: Do any physicists - worldwide - ever use “alot” when they actually ought to have used the two words (that exist), " a lot?" How many physicists believe that an actual infinity exists (outside of God)? Among Physicists, don’t they have one of the largest percentages of atheists of any group? And, I’m supposed to just acquiesce that they are all so smart??
Refute them.
“Energy.” What is it exactly? Is “quantum vacuum” ever used interchangeably with “vacuum?” Do you not see that the use of the word, “vacuum,” in the phrase, “quantum vacuum,” is a borrowed word? Since we know, or at least should know, what “vacuum” means, we shall borrow it as there is no other word that really conveys what we want to say, or mean. I get the impression that you don’t do English.It’s the state which has the lowest energy possible. That’s the scientific definition, but I’m getting the impression you don’t do science.
BTW: in the words of Richard Feynman, “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount.”
God bless,
jd
C
catholictiger
Guest
the chair is a thing. but I’ll play along
scientifcally you are exactly correct from the scientific perspective there is nothing in this room.
Scientifically no, philosophically or theologically yes there is.
actually I don’t believe there is such thing as space and time I believe it is something that we impose so to say on reality. Our sense perceptions make it look like there is space and time, but they don’t really exist they are just things used to try to explain the nature of how light is effect by gravity and how things are placed in the universe. Space and Time have no existence they aren’t things that are in reality. A better way to put it is that space and time only exist in our minds.
yes looking at it from a pure scientific explanation we displaced nothing.
which can’t be explained by science so now you are bringing philosophy into a scientific analogy.
this brings me to my own point which will take a while. You are exactly correct these are two different view points that are both true. God is in there and nothing is in there at the same time, but that doesn’t mean God is like nothing.
take into account these two sentences
“the rose is red”
“the rose isn’t red the particles molecules atoms and all of that stuff make it appear red, there is actually no redness in the obejct itself”
both statements are true. Scientifically the second statement is true, the rose is made up of particles which make it appear red. The explanatory explanation or the first sentence is also true. The rose to our sense is red.
but the rose is red and the rose isn’t red seems to be contradictory, but they are not because they deal with two completely different fields of studies. In one you have science, and the other you have sense perception. Both can be true at the same time even though they contradict each-other.
Another example
“the paddle is bent”
“the paddle is straight”
both can be said about one object at the same time and both be true. But don’t these contradict each-other no not at all. They are two different explinations all together. The paddle is bent is what the person sees when the paddle is under water and over water at the same time. The paddle is straight is what the object actually is.
so again you are dealing with two different explanations of two different things.
that is what you are doing in your explination. You have two statements, “there is nothing in the room”, “God is in the room” Scientifically there is nothign in the room, God can’t be explained by science because he has no matter, Science only studies matter, God has no matter therefore God can’t be studied. But theologically speaking there is something in there. God who is omnipresent is present in that room of nothingness. You make a jump using this analogy, I think, to say that God is like nothingness, but the problem is you can’t make that jump. You are using two different types of judgement to get to a third judgement. That is a logically fallacy. Its like saying Something is straight but looks bent, so the object’s essence is straight and bent at the same time. But that is absurd, it is either straight or it is bent. Can’t be both at the same time, and to say it is like being bent but it really is straight is also abusrd, something can’t be like something when it is completely opposite of what it is.
you make a good analogy but it doesn’t work because you are dealing with two different types of judgments. One judgment is of science, the other judgment is of philosophy or theology.
just like the paddle is straight, and the paddle is bent can be true at the same time. So the room has nothing in it and the room has God in it can be true at the same time. But that doesn’t mean a straight paddle is like a bent paddle and that doesn’t mean God is like nothing.
C
catholictiger
Guest
sorry had to break this into two posts but this to important to not break up into two posts
i’ll say this Philosophy can’t handle physics but can handle God
Science can’t handle God but can handle physics.
your trying to say that God is like something in science but Science can’t explain God so God really isn’t anything like that thing in science.
plus wouldn’t this start to move into pantheology
I hope I got this in few enough characters
if your reading this I did (but it was split up into two 
)
not confusing at all I hope my last little argument showed this.
nope but tryhing to understand God and Physics using the samd field of study will cause confusion.
i’ll say this Philosophy can’t handle physics but can handle God
Science can’t handle God but can handle physics.
your trying to say that God is like something in science but Science can’t explain God so God really isn’t anything like that thing in science.
I guess you mean matter filled space? That’s not nothing
you are starting to use scientfic terms I can’t even begin to understand but this is a major problem, God can’t be explained by science so when you start to use terms that connect God and Science we have a problem. Explain God philosophically not scientifically
no, we do have mass and solidity God created something that has matter and form essence and existence. That has an intellect that has a soul and a body. We aren’t just 3D holograms int hemidn of God.
and I wouldn’t agree with those physicists. but again we are getting into this mixing of philosophy and science. I believe Philosophy clearly states what humans are it isn’t 3D holograms.
no no no no no no
plus wouldn’t this start to move into pantheology
body form is the same thing as soul and body just different terms.
I hope I got this in few enough characters
if your reading this I did
(but it was split up into two )
Y
yppop
Guest
InocenteThanks for that summary. As you say, it’s not science.
It would be wrong to dismiss the argument without seeing it in full in one place, and don’t jump down my throat here, but for what it’s worth my impression so far is that it miscomprehends what is known, conflates it with what is (currently) unknown, and mixes in some mysticism.
We both know a poster who believes God is made of a physical substance (not space) and self-published a book on his theory. I was one of those he asked to critique the draft, and my major issue, beyond the errors in the science, beyond it being “out there”, was that it didn’t actually explain anything or fire the imagination in any way, there was nothing compelling, it was eminently put-downable.
Could well be wrong but it feels like déja vu.
I assume you are talking about the now absent GL. I critiqued his thesis when it was a web site. I made about 20 suggestions for corrections and he ignored all but two or three. I bought and read his book. His thesis is buried in an ocean of irascible comments, but it is the comments that made it readable. He does have a delightful sense of humor. In addition I am a bibliophile and his paperback has the highest quality of all the paperbacks in my library. Are you aware of his first book?
The big difference between his thesis and mine is that I haven’t had to invent anything new like aeons, beons, or the mystical dark energy. My thesis is based solely on known quantities such as continuous and discrete space and the power of God and I do not contradict any of the physical science that I am familiar with, I merely assign the vast diversity of scientific theories, laws, and hypotheses to the explicate level of reality and describe a possible mechanism operating at a deeper level, the implicate. Do you have a problem with the way I have identified the material and the spiritual? It certainly isn’t Cartesian. In working with both modalities of space in which the spiritual continuous space (infinite nothingness) encompasses and permeates the lesser form of discrete space that is the basis for matter, I keep the structure hylomorphic (in the sense of Aquinas). That is: the spirit forms matter and matter contains the spiritual in a synergistic amalgam whose objective is the human being. (JD correct me if I’ve gone astray here).
Here is how I think about hylomorphism in common terms. Sand castles: if I go to the ocean and remove a sand bucket of water, I leave no hole in the ocean (a characteristic of the continuous). But when I invert the bucket on the beach the water refuses to hold the form of a bucket; water appears formless like the spiritual. A bucket of sand does the same as the water. But when I take a bucket of wet sand and invert the bucket, the result is a form of the inverted bucket from which I can build a sand castle. In my mind, the water represents a continuous substance. The sand represents a discrete substance that is formative only when the water is added. That, for anyone that has ever been to the seashore, is not in the least mystical and I can, in my mind, translate that child’s activity into what I am claiming to be the basis for our realty. The grains of sand are like the points of discrete space (s-points) from which matter is derived and the water is like the continuous space that represents the spiritual. That is not science, it probably isn’t metaphysics, I like to think of it as metascience.
By the way, I happen to agree with your first sentence except for the phrase, “…it miscomprehends what is known”. Can you enlighten me on that score?
By the way, in my first responses to you, I used “Baptist Guy” as an address as a ruse to see if you were male or female. You never know who or what you are communicating with on theinternet. No objection or correction meant that you are a man. An intelligent one surely.
Yppop
I
inocente
Guest
As you’ve not explained, I’ll take it you didn’t know what the minus sign meant when in post #153 you wrote “Let’s tell it like it really is: proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10[SUP]-27[/SUP] kilograms. Now, is that a minus sign I see in front of the 27?”
Neither does the dictionary definition.
No idea what any of that’s about.
We’re talking about definitions, not claims. The argument that physicists don’t know what they’re talking about because some of them are atheists would of course be an ad hominem fallacy.
Every piece of nonsense which gets onto the internet must be regarded as true until it’s refuted?
There’s no point insulting me when all I did was repeat the standard definition, as was also the case with “motion” and “space”.“Energy.” What is it exactly? Is “quantum vacuum” ever used interchangeably with “vacuum?” Do you not see that the use of the word, “vacuum,” in the phrase, “quantum vacuum,” is a borrowed word? Since we know, or at least should know, what “vacuum” means, we shall borrow it as there is no other word that really conveys what we want to say, or mean. I get the impression that you don’t do English.
Any chance of getting back to the topic?
- Status