T
tonyrey
Guest
It is** certainly **presumptuous to claim to understand the nature of Ultimate Reality but Occam’s Razor is still relevant. There is no reason to suppose there is more than One Ultimate Reality.
- Status
E
elts1956
Guest
I know this is not a typical concept, but how do we know the Universe is not the Supreme Being? Yeah, yeah, I know, not Catholic.
D
Drawmack
Guest
For an answer to that question I would refer you to some books on Hindu philosophy. They actually believe this, so garnering an understanding of their philosophy would stand a good chance of enlightening you to the reasons why this does not make sense.
E
elts1956
Guest
I’m too lazy to get into the Hindu philosophy. I have enough trouble figuring out Moral theology. Usually I can’t. So I will argue, oops dialogue with you. Isn’t “everything” made of energy? So what is so far off base with the energy of the Universe?
D
Drawmack
Guest
I’m not sure why you quoted the term everything. But, yes all physical matter is really just energy according to our current understanding of physics.
There are three problems with people’s souls joining the Universe. First, this would mean that the Universe is God. Since we know, scientifically, that the Universe had a beginning this would mean that God had a beginning – thus a non-eternal God. Additionally, how could the Universe have this consciousness prior to perfected souls joining it in the first place. Secondly, you are correct that all matter is energy based. However, applying this logic to the human soul would mean that the soul is this same type of material energy. There are a lot of energies which do not produce something material – force, gravity, etc. If the human soul were material energy then the weight of a human corpse would change at the moment of separation, which does not happen. Additionally, (assuming human souls are material energy) then every time one joined the Universe more matter would spontaneously appear some where. Finally, if the Universe (itself) is God, then God is bound by the Universe. It does not make sense to me that a being powerful enough to create the Universe would be bound by it. That would be like Henry Ford not being able to get out of a car – ever.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Wait… saying God is inside the universe is silly if he IS the universe, he wouldn’t be inside it because he IS it in that argument.
D
Drawmack
Guest
I didn’t mean to say that he is in the Universe. I intended to say that he is bound by the Universe. Which is true because the Universe cannot exceed the Universe.
L
liquidpele
Guest
I see, however, if God *was *the universe, it would not be a stretch to think he could take another form at his discretion. Therefore, he is not bounded by it, but removing the boundary would surely mean the end of the world.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Sure, but to keep the Universe in existence then He is bound to continue being the Universe. Also, by your original postulate. God is not a He, but a conglomeration of Them. You are saying God is the Universe. Then you are saying that when people die they join the Universe. Thus, people’s souls join God and therefore God is no longer a single entity but a conglomeration of a bunch of independently free willed entities.
Additionally, you are saying that God is material as for Him to be the Universe He would have to be the material which makes up the Universe. As a material being He would intrinsically be limited to the material laws. So, we are back at God being limited by his own creation. If God is the Universe there is no way around Him being limited by his own creation which makes no sense.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Think of it this way… if you are in a room, are you limited by that room? Not really, because you choose to stay in the room or leave if you like. A better anology would be a chameleon. Would it be bound to a color once it decides to be green for a while? God (he/she/whatever) would not be bound by the universe that he was because he could choose to change form and destroy it at any moment. Saying he would be bound to it means he has no choice or ability to change things.
D
Drawmack
Guest
No, I am not saying that as all. Neither of your analogies works, if I am in a room I am not that room I am simply contained within it. If a chameleon turns green he is still a chameleon he has not become green he has simply changed his color and one of the chameleon’s properties is to change color. Just as one of God’s properties is to create, not to become. Thus God created the Universe, He did not become the Universe.
If God IS the Universe then God IS the Universe and cannot be anything but the Universe. That is to imply that God can change his own nature. God exists outside of time. Thus God’s nature cannot change. Since God exists outside of time it would be impossible for God to change his nature because that would happen at a time and God is timeless.
L
liquidpele
Guest
So if God is the universe he can’t change his own nature? He’s God… I think he could do it if he wanted. Time exists because of energy/matter. If God changed his form and the universe ended, time would stop, but God would still exist, just in different form.
Sounds like you are putting your own limitations on such a scenario so that you can argue against it to me. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s just as unprovable as most theories on God, I just think it’s technically a possibility because I don’t see how one could possibly falsify it.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Well, I am Catholic and yes we believe that God cannot change his own nature. While he is omnipotent and omniscient but he cannot do what does not make sense or what is self contradictory. For, if God could change his nature than there would be no moral absolutes there would only be what God wants now, but He might change His mind. If He could change his mind that would imply timeliness instead of timelessness because the changing of the mind would have to happen at a point in time.
Just so we’re on the same page, I’m not attempting to convince you; I’m attempting to explain what I believe. It is through explaining and defending my beliefs that I understand them better myself.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Ah, that does make more sense now. Thank you for the explanation
However… God does cause miracles, does he not? Just because he makes a choice about something like whether to help a person in need or not (or perhaps the choice is not even a choice for him but just the path of God) why would changing his form be any different?
D
Drawmack
Guest
I’m a little tired right now, been baby sitting a 14 and an 8 year old for a couple hours, so I just want to make sure I understand your question before launching into an explanation. Are you asking how God changing his form is different than God creating a miracle?Ah, that does make more sense now. Thank you for the explanation
However… God does cause miracles, does he not? Just because he makes a choice about something like whether to help a person in need or not (or perhaps the choice is not even a choice for him but just the path of God) why would changing his form be any different?
L
liquidpele
Guest
It’s okay, I can probably guess you’re answer anyway. I think we both understand each other at least
E
elts1956
Guest
This is interesting. I am just dialogueing out of curiosity. I’m not saying my hypothesis is right and yours wrong.
Okay we suspect, scientifically, the Universe was created by a “big bang” of some sort. Didn’t that require an energy “outside” of the Universe? Since all that is physical will someday return to an energy, “of some kind”, why would we not be a miniscule part of the orignial energy, God?? So far, we have found, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but becomes another form. I think I am losing the concept of a Heaven, as a place, with heavenly beings. Somehow it’s not ringing logically for me and besides, no one has ever seen it. But then Jesus did say something like there are many wonders my Father has prepared for you.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Same reason I dialogue. I also don’t believe in beating people about the head with Church teachings but rather like to explain things the way I understand them.
The stance of the non-theist is that this bang, just happened. It was some sort of chemical reaction which required no catalyst. The big bang somehow created itself. The theist position is that the big bang did, in fact, require a catalyst. That catalyst is God. However, God just exists and required no creation while everything else did. This is why, to relate back to the original topic, you can’t use Occam’s Razor in this argument. Because both sides are adding exactly one entity, but they are adding it at different places. Therefore, neither side can show less additive entities.
You are mistaken on the basic science that underlies this discussion. All matter is energy, so stating that it will return to energy is an oxymoron. That would be like you or I returning to being a person. We already are a person. Here: youtube.com/watch?v=ZB7B_796mVs&feature=related it’s a short children’s program that explains how atoms work. I don’t post a link to a children’s program as some sort of back handed insult or anything of the kind. I like children’s programs in discussions like this because they are easy to understand and entertaining to watch. The part that’s interesting to this discussion starts at about 2:00 minutes in.
So, matter really is energy. It is stored, or potential, energy. When we convert matter into fuel (like burning gasoline for example) we are not converting the type of energy that it is we are simply releasing it’s potential energy and utilizing that energy to effect a movement or change in other objects which themselves are nothing but potential energy (like moving the pistons in an engine for example).
This being the case, that matter and energy are one and the same, if the soul were some type of physical energy then when it left the body it would cause the body to weigh less. As this does not happen one is left to assume that the human soul is not a quantifiable physical energy, minuscule or otherwise. So, it really can’t join the Universe as such.
Correct, one cannot simply produce energy (electricity for example) but must take an already existing energy source (flowing water, steam convection, etc) and convert it into the type of energy desired. However, this is a limitation of man. God actually is capable of creating new energy, otherwise there would be no Universe.
Believe it or not, I think it is good that you’re loosing a concept of Heaven as a physical place. I do not think that Heaven is a physical place. If Heaven were a physical place then the laws of the physical world would apply there. Heaven is definitely a place, but it is a place beyond the current comprehensive and observative abilities or man. Possibly it always will be, that discussion is really moot though.
Since, as I’ve shown above, the bodies in Heaven are not any type of physical energy or matter that we currently know about, or can measure, thinking of Heaven as a place like the physical places we are aware of is, at best, an imperfect metaphor but it is really the only way we can talk about it. It is possible that Heaven is simply everywhere but is hidden from the material world. It is possible that Heaven is somewhere completely removed from the physical world. We simply cannot know this.
The fact that no one has seen it really does not mean much because we are talking about something that can’t be seen by man with his current abilities. Much like dark matter. Scientists are pretty sure it exists because the Universal laws of gravity would break down if it didn’t but we can’t see it. So scientists assume it exists, and will continue to hold this assumption, until a better theory is developed or dark matter is found. Thinking of Heaven much the same way might help out here.
But assuming that Heaven simply is the Universe is a very flawed principle for two basic reasons. First all matter is really energy and energy always seeks to change form (which I didn’t explain or prove in this post but can if need be). Thus, if human souls were this sort of mailable energy converting from one form to another then we would have to accept that human souls are not permanent because they would seek to change form. Thus eternal life through the Kingdom of Heaven would be impossible because our very souls would be seeking to change form. So, this line or reasoning is clearly in direct opposition to Christian Theology.
Am I making sense here?
E
elts1956
Guest
You are making sense, but I am having trouble making sense of some of what you said. That is my problem, not yours. You are obviously more well versed in this than I am.
Okay, God is energy (if we accept that) and our souls are energy, perhaps not the same as a physical energy?. Since our longing for God in this world is a longing to return to Him, do you think the energy of our souls is a part of God Himself? I kind of like that concept. Such as, perhaps God is saddened by the loss of His positve energy (us) when we sin??? Wild!!!
No sense, huh?
D
Drawmack
Guest
If there are specific pieces you’re having trouble getting your head around let me know and I’ll attempt further explanation.
While I do nor really think it is correct that God is energy, I think it can be a helpful metaphor, or analogy, to think of Him this way. But yes, He (and our souls) would definitely not be physical energy because that would place the limitations of being a physical being on God who is limitless. (Which is actually the same problem with the energy metaphor in general, but all metaphors break down at some point.)
Now this is an interesting question. For the Bible states that the law is written on our hearts and that God dwells within in us. (Sorry don’t have the verse references handy and I’m paraphrasing.) Which would seem to allude to the supposition that you are making. While extremely useful as an explanatory tool I do not think it is completely correct.
I think this longing to return to God is more a type of love that our soul has for it’s maker. As an analogy, think about the parental relationship of humans. What drives the person who was put up for adoption, or raised as an orphan, to look for their biological family when they are an adult? I think that this would be the same type of longing that we feel to return to God, but the longing for God is on a much deeper level. Some of these people do not actively look for their biological family, but they still long. (like an agnostic) Others of these people twist this longing into a hatred of their parents. (like an atheist bent on proving God does not exist) Why does this longing drive some people to search actively, others to simply long, and some to actively fight against it? Here is where your energy analogy comes into play.
In the atom we were discussing earlier there are three types of particles: protons, electrons, and neutrons. Protons possess a positive charge, electrons possess a negative charge, and neutrons possess no charge. It takes all three types to make up an atom and create the matter that we so love to interact with. If you remove anyone of these the matter ceases to exist (think of an atom smasher). So, why would the world not need all three types as well? Wouldn’t the removal of any of these leave the world less full and less fulfilling? This kind of relates to the Catholic teaching on Grace and how we each possess it in differing quantities. I hope that makes sense.
I think that is a really good way to look at it. This kind of relates to when Jesus said he felt the energy (paraphrasing again) go out of him. It would be like when a parent watches their child walk away. It is as if a piece of themselves has walked away. Now, of course, the child is not actually a piece of the parent. But, that is how it feels. And, taking it back to the analogy of energy, if an atom looses an electron then it cannot maintain it’s original form. It is left as something less than what it was before it lost this part of itself.
You’re making sense.
- Status