Logos, gravity et cetera

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
If human reasoning cannot discern the nature of gravity;

if human reasoning using math, measuring, counting, and weighing cannot discern the nature of humanness;

if human reasoning can discern more fully human nature using other forms of reasoning than math, measuring, counting and weighing;

perhaps a logos formed gravity and the other forces of nature and human beings.

Might there be a thought that formed gravity, and the other forces of nature?

Should human reasoning look for the* logos* or thought that formed gravity or the other basic building blocks of the physical and mental worlds?

Would it benefit human reasoning in the area of the physical sciences to hypothesize logos, and look to discern it?

What should we postulate to explain the mysteries of the universe?

THANKS!
 
Jim_Baur said:
If human reasoning cannot discern the nature of gravity;

if human reasoning using math, measuring, counting, and weighing cannot discern the nature of humanness;

if human reasoning can discern more fully human nature using other forms of reasoning than math, measuring, counting and weighing;

perhaps a logos formed gravity and the other forces of nature and human beings.

Might there be a thought that formed gravity, and the other forces of nature?

Should human reasoning look for the* logos* or thought that formed gravity or the other basic building blocks of the physical and mental worlds?

Would it benefit human reasoning in the area of the physical sciences to hypothesize logos, and look to discern it?

What should we postulate to explain the mysteries of the universe?

THANKS!
Click to expand...
To postulate nothing, trying to build a framework which is axiom free.
 
Jim_Baur said:
If human reasoning cannot discern the nature of gravity;

if human reasoning using math, measuring, counting, and weighing cannot discern the nature of humanness;

if human reasoning can discern more fully human nature using other forms of reasoning than math, measuring, counting and weighing;

perhaps a logos formed gravity and the other forces of nature and human beings.

Might there be a thought that formed gravity, and the other forces of nature?

Should human reasoning look for the* logos* or thought that formed gravity or the other basic building blocks of the physical and mental worlds?

Would it benefit human reasoning in the area of the physical sciences to hypothesize logos, and look to discern it?

What should we postulate to explain the mysteries of the universe?

THANKS!
Click to expand...
Even Isasc Newton dared not speculate on the nature of gravity because of the universal and historic opposition of science to " action at a distance. " Although he hinted that it might simply be the power of God governing the universe. And in spite of all the hoopla of modern Cosmologists over Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, no one yet has discovered the nature of gravity. It might indeed be the first thing created by God. This would fit in nicely with the thinking of those who think gravity and the laws of gravity " created " the universe. Except in my interpretation it would be God who created gravity from which everything else evolved. That would be more reasonable than those who speculate that gravity had no cause. Of course this scenario assumes that gravity is some subtle kind of matter, something like a " prime matter " from which all subsequent forms of matter were derived.

On the other hand we cannot dismiss the possibility that gravity is actually God’s own Eternal Power at work guiding the creative emergance of the universe. But in this case gravity would not be a material something, it would be the Spiritual Power of God at work. In this case you could view it as the Eternal Word or Logos of God at work. But in this case there would be no " gravitons " to be discovered. All you would be able to do is measure the effects, which science is doing now except they are currently confusing effects with the power which is causing these effects. It is the same mistake they make when they confuse the effects of God’s creative act, the universe, with a self causing, self explaining, self sustaining act, an actuality which caused and explains itself - which is contrary to reason. For if the universe had no cause, why does anything else have to have a cause? .

Just my speculations, something to ponder.

Linus2nd
 
Who holds the position that gravity created the universe?

If I get the time, I will search for it.

THANKS!
 
It seems strange, ( the statement.

Gravity is everywhere in the universe, everything in the universe is in motion, time is impossible to dis-associate. So they all must have a relationship.

The force gravity seems an outcome in above combination of things to do with a universe and translates information about the environment. That’s what everything does.

To say all we need for a universe is gravity seems the same as saying all we need for a universe is the universe itself. I remeber an interview on TV with scientist Hawking. Hawking- all we need for a universe is gravity, L King- well then what do we need for gravity, Hawking- pause, that is like asking what is needed for equation 2+2=4.

L King, why not ask what is representing 2, another 2 and a consequence itself, and 4. Seems a universe.
 
Jim_Baur said:
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/09/02/god-did-not-create-the-universe-gravity-did-says-stephen-hawking/
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t give to much weight to Hawkings claims of more recent years. While he seems to be knowledgeable in many areas of physics the statements about gravity creating the universe come across as a composition of non sequiturs. Being talented and otherwise bright doesn’t give some one immunity to being wrong; for example Newton was pretty bright though his writings on alchemy can be safely ignored.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Personally, I don’t give to much weight to Hawkings claims of more recent years. While he seems to be knowledgeable in many areas of physics the statements about gravity creating the universe come across as a composition of non sequiturs. Being talented and otherwise bright doesn’t give some one immunity to being wrong; for example Newton was pretty bright though his writings on alchemy can be safely ignored.
Click to expand...
The catholic posters here have made the common error of jumping to conclusions without reasoning.
Hawkings opinion is not settled science. Hawking would object to the very idea that one ought to consider anything that comes out of his mouth as settled science.
Because anyone who does science knows better than to jump to that conclusion.
Bringing up Newton is completely hillarious as it highlights how this should be obvious to people. Linus Pauling anyone?
 
Is it possible for gravity to exist first?

Is it possible for matter to exist first?

Which came first, gravity or matter?

Did they have to come into existence simultaneously?

Did all that followed, if there was a sequence, have to develop in steps or all at once?
 
Jim_Baur said:
Is it possible for gravity to exist first? No.

Is it possible for matter to exist first? No.

Which came first, gravity or matter? No one.

Did they have to come into existence simultaneously? Yes.
Click to expand...
 
What is more logical from our human intellectual view: slow development of one component are all at once?

Should one posit gravity first?

Then material?

Then mass?

Then light?

Then electromagnetic field?

Then dark matter?

Then dark energy?

What would be the order?

There are so many components, might some person give me a step-by-step development.

From where did the structure come?

From where did the logic come?

From where does the love in our heart come?

Not to mention life and even subatomic particles???

The parts of DNA before or after DNA?

How did the parts reproduce???

I am going with the ancient Greek scientists: there is a Logos.

Now I am into belief: I am going with the Jews, YWHA created us and made a covenant with us.

I am going with the Christians, Love became Incarnate. He is a person.

I am going with: I do not understand it, but I truly believe that God is madly in love with us and wants us to fall deeply with His loving beauty, eternal love, and infinite happiness or beatitude.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Is it possible for gravity to exist first?

Is it possible for matter to exist first?

Which came first, gravity or matter?

Did they have to come into existence simultaneously?

Did all that followed, if there was a sequence, have to develop in steps or all at once?
Click to expand...
Every thing which is a part of the universe is some derivative of matter, whether that be waves or particles. And, should it ever be proven that gravity is a " wave " or some kind of particle, then it would be a derivative of matter and therefore matter just as energy is matter. Matter does not have to be something " solid, "

Did you know that no one has ever succeded in " screening " gravity. Magnitism and electricity can be shielded, but not gravity. Makes one wonder doesn’t it?

Linus2nd
 
StrawberryJam said:
The catholic posters here have made the common error of jumping to conclusions without reasoning.
Hawkings opinion is not settled science. Hawking would object to the very idea that one ought to consider anything that comes out of his mouth as settled science.
Because anyone who does science knows better than to jump to that conclusion.
Bringing up Newton is completely hillarious as it highlights how this should be obvious to people. Linus Pauling anyone?
Click to expand...
We await your enlightend explanation as to why bringing up Newton is hillarious. In fact you have made a rather serious assertion. And exactly where does Linus Pauling fit in? Surely you don’t expect anyone here to take your assertions serioiusly without a clear explanation. Your standing here is not that of an authority which can be trusted, since we will always assume that your assertions are tainted by your atheistic world view, which is per se antagonistic to Christianity in general and to Catholicism in particular. So, explain or apologize.

Oh, by the way, Hawkings isn’t doing much to dispel the meaning that people have attached to his assertions - excuse me, speculations.

Linus2nd
 
Linus:

I did not know that, and about two other billion things.

THANKS!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Linus:

I did not know that, and about two other billion things.

THANKS!
Click to expand...
No one knows everything, but we muddle along trying to sort things out. You do know that Edward Feser has a new book out don’t you?

Linus2nd
 
two billion minus one.

I looked him up, now I know one more thing.

THANKS!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top