OK, let's assume a creator

[MaxRosen]

Just to expand a little on my previous post.

Many people will ask, if we are a mere sideshow what’s the point?

Paul provides an answer of sorts.

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

(Rom 12:1-2)

And maybe that’s the only answer there is to the meaning of life.

I know Paul was writing in the context of the “Body of Christ” but can we assume that the Body of Christ is confined to this one point in space-time?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MaxRosen

But, in truth, I think the issue of theism is “undecidable” from a scientific perspective. Those who believe they have proved the existence of God and those who believe they have disproved his existence – like Dawkins – are equally misguided.

I agree. But, setting aside absolute scientific proof for either side, a decision still has to be made, whether to believe or not to believe. It is true, or it is not true, that there is a God who made us and designed a purpose for our being.

To believe or not to believe? All the evidence of plausibility and desire is on the side of God; none of it is on the side of Nogod. If there is plausible evidence and desire for Nogod, let’s hear it.

 

[MaxRosen]

Charlemagne II

In my view the existence of God is something you have to take on faith. I don’t think there is any way around that.

But even if you decide you believe in God the question is “which God”. As I’ve written elsewhere a God who flunks biology 101 or geology 101 is not really credible so we can dismiss the Muslim God. The Baptist version of a God who creates the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago is also no longer credible.

What about “God the utterly indifferent”?

If there is a God I would hope he is somewhat like the deity Jesus describes. But in the end I have no way of knowing. I would have to make a leap of faith.

You quote Einstein. Here is what Einstein had to say:

In the note, written the year before his death, Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as “pretty childish.”

Einstein: Bible Is 'Primitive, Pretty Childish

But that of course means nothing. The existence or non-existence of God does not depend on Einstein or anyone else.

 

[John21652]

Use your logic only. The only starting point is that the universe does not stand on its own right, that it was created.

The universe was created.
Everything in the universe is a result of that creation.
Creation is a self perpetuating, self sustaining system.
Logic is discovered by the human mind to be installed within creation.
Logic exists.
Logic is a creation.
Logic is a part of thinking.
Thinking exists and is part of creation.
Creation was created logically.
The creators’s mind is logical.
Mankind strives to think logically.
Not all human thinking is logical.
The OP is striving for logical thinking.
The OP is therefore recognising he cannot be anywhere near as smart as the creator.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Excellent points, and I totally agree. The only valid logical deduction is that the architect was able to build that building. Nothing less, nothing more. Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut. Oh, and I love puns! Yours is far from being a bad one, it is a wonderful pun.

Spock, I fear that you are actually correct.

I have read your original question and most of the replies to it and I am not convinced how much man can assume without the teachings of the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ beyond the fact that the universe was created by a Creator.

If man could by logic or reason alone arrive at the teachings of the Catholic Church, why would Jesus Christ have to come to Earth the establish the Church in the first place?

Thank you for helping to enlighten me with your logic.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Los_Angeles]

There is some seriously “bog-standard” philosophy on this thread.

What’s the point of saying on a philosophy forum that God loves us if one is not prepared to demonstrate it logically? What is the point of saying that God is perfect if one is not prepared to explain why God must be perfect using logic?

Simply listing Gods attributes, or quoting the bible, is not doing philosophy or the philosophy of religion. Simply pointing to a source outside of this forum instead of engaging in the debate is not doing philosophy. Failing to follow the rules of the thread is not doing philosophy. I’m sorry guys, but If anything, its making us look ignorant.

If you happen to be somebody who has done what Spock has asked, please do not see this post as aimed at you. People think they are doing good, but they are doing harm.

No wonder there’s so many atheists in the world.

Sadly, I think I agree.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[pnewton]

There is some seriously "bog-standard

I do not think I agree, at least totally. This is not a philosophy forum. It is a philosophy* sub*-forum in a Catholic forum. I think this should offer a little more leeway for tolerance for what was labeled “bog-standard”, as well as a recognition that there are no “thread rules”. Some of us here have no more that a basic knowledge of philosophy and would never consider posting on an academic board for that reason. There is not less intelligence or reasoning ability among the arm chair thinkers, and thus, no need to look down at them, or belittle them as Spock did with his grading system. It is not like this thread is going to run out of room.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MaxRosen

What about “God the utterly indifferent”?

That sounds more like Einstein’s God. But he was certainly no atheist. That he could not imagine a personal God strikes me as more a reflection of his personality than his genius. But his contempt for atheists was equal to his contempt for theists.

In one place Einstein confessed himself to be a cold and distant person, aloof from the common herd. I’m afraid his conception of God probably matched in some way his conception of himself.

“I am a completely isolated man and though everybody knows me, there are very few people who really know me.”

 

[Los_Angeles]

I do not think I agree, at least totally. This is not a philosophy forum. It is a philosophy* sub*-forum in a Catholic forum. I think this should offer a little more leeway for tolerance for what was labeled “bog-standard”, as well as a recognition that there are no “thread rules”. Some of us here have no more that a basic knowledge of philosophy and would never consider posting on an academic board for that reason. There is not less intelligence or reasoning ability among the arm chair thinkers, and thus, no need to look down at them, or belittle them as Spock did with his grading system. It is not like this thread is going to run out of room.

I agree with your disagreement about the part about Spock’s grading system, but I don’t think he was intentionally trying to belittle people but rather make the point that some people were not really following the rules that he wanted of using logic alone to arrive at their conclusions about God.

As for the part about people on this sub forum not having more than a basic knowledge of philosophy, I am neutral. I simply think that people’s arguments in response the the original question should be based on how well they attempted to answer within those constraints.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[tonyrey]

If man could by logic or reason alone arrive at the teachings of the Catholic Church, why would Jesus Christ have to come to Earth the establish the Church in the first place?

We are not concerned with specifically Catholic doctrine but with what can be deduced from the existence of a creator. Do you deny that life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for enjoyment and fulfilment? If not it follows as the night from the day that the creator is benevolent - unless of course you believe goodness is a myth…

 

[Riley259]

This is your assumption, and I am going to go along with it - in this thread. Let’s assume that this universe is not all there is. Let’s pretend that your “first something”, “prime whatever”, etc… type of argument was successful. What can be deduced from this assumption? Use your logic only. The only starting point is that the universe does not stand on its own right, that it was created. No reference to faith, revelation and such. No other auxiliary assumptions. What can you say about this creator?

If you don’t like the restrictions, do not post. I am only interested in your logical conclusions. Show me how logical you are. I will post my views later. Don’t want to influence your ideas.

See book “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Robert Spitzer for comprehensive answer to your question.

 

[tonyrey]

MaxRosen

What about “God the utterly indifferent”?

That sounds more like Einstein’s God. But he was certainly no atheist. That he could not imagine a personal God strikes me as more a reflection of his personality than his genius. But his contempt for atheists was equal to his contempt for theists.

In one place Einstein confessed himself to be a cold and distant person, aloof from the common herd. I’m afraid his conception of God probably matched in some way his conception of himself.

“I am a completely isolated man and though everybody knows me, there are very few people who really know me.”

“God the utterly indifferent”? reveals **a lack of appreciation **of the incredible glory and beauty of the universe. The great philosopher Kant described standing on the edge of a precipice looking at the night sky full of stars and the vast expanse of sea below. He realised what is most significant is not the sublimity of the panorama but the conscious mind which grasps its sublimity…

 

[MaxRosen]

Riley259

Spitzer’s book is a mixture of two genres, God of the gaps and anthropic principle. I’m reading it because I enjoy that kind of speculative literature and this one is well written. Robert Spitzer knows his stuff.

In the end Spitzer demonstrates that we have no answers to certain scientific questions which is hardly controversial. If we had all the answers science would cease. We wouldn’t bother with large hadron colliders or ever bigger telescopes.

We know we don’t have all the answers.

In the future we may find the answers to some of those questions. And some of them – what came “before” the big bang – we may never answer.

What Spitzer’s book does NOT do is prove the existence of a deity let alone a personal deity.

I know that many believers are desperate for some sort of scientific confirmation of their beliefs. I don’t think that will ever happen.

On the other hand, Dawkins notwithstanding, I have never seen anything that falsifies the “God hypothesis.” That may be cold comfort but I think it’s the best we can do.

Perhaps the absence of scientific confirmation is a cross believers have to bear.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps the absence of scientific confirmation is a cross believers have to bear.

You are neglecting the fact that science is based on metascientific, i.e. philosophical, principles. Scepticism takes you precisely nowhere! At the very least you have to accept the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe - both of which require explanation…

 

[MaxRosen]

Tonyrey

Consider the 100 trillion or so exquisitely precise molecular machines that make up your body. We call them cells. If find each one of them more awe-inspiring than an entire galaxy.

There is much to marvel at in this strange universe we inhabit. I don’t think a day passes when I don’t experience a sense of wonderment. People who have lost the ability to wonder, to feel a sense of awe, to be inspired by the universe, are the walking dead.

All I am saying is that none of this proves the existence of a deity let alone a personal deity.

 

[MaxRosen]

You are neglecting the fact that science is based on metascientific, i.e. philosophical, principles. Scepticism takes you precisely nowhere! At the very least you have to accept the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe - both of which require explanation…

tonyrey,

There are many things that require explanation. And perhaps a deity is the explanation. And then again perhaps not.

I’m afraid that I can see no way of settling the matter.

 

[Los_Angeles]

We are not concerned with specifically Catholic doctrine but with what can be deduced from the existence of a creator. Do you deny that life is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for enjoyment and fulfilment? If not it follows as the night from the day that the creator is benevolent - unless of course you believe goodness is a myth…

Not sure I’m following you. I will do my best to explain my position.

It appears that Spock contends that the most that we can know about the Creator of the universe if we assume a Creator is that the Creator created the universe. Nothing more nothing less.

My position is that Spock’s contention makes logical sense both from experience and from reason.

For me personally, before I became Catholic, I had no idea of life’s meaning. I made philosophical introspections and read many philosophy books, but came to nothing conclusive. Later, Protestants exposed me to the New Testament which “spoke” to me and after many objections I accepted as the Truth. Later I ran across a Catholic book which eventually led me to RCIA, which led to more questions being answered, which lead to me joining the Catholic Church.

To sum it all up, it is easier to look back now and say that life can be a source of opportunites for enjoyment an fulfillment, but that is precisely because of the Catholic Church. I do not see how it is possible to arrive at any theological conclusions about God after accepting that He exists other than He exists, without the aid of God to reveal more about Himself to man.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[MaxRosen]

Later, Protestants exposed me to the New Testament which “spoke” to me and after many objections I accepted as the Truth.

Hi Los Angeles

Out of curiosity, how did you conclude that the New Testament was the “Truth” with a capital T.

Hope you don’t mind my asking.

 

[pnewton]

It appears that Spock contends that the most that we can know about the Creator of the universe if we assume a Creator is that the Creator created the universe. Nothing more nothing less.

My position is that Spock’s contention makes logical sense both from experience and from reason.

I do not agree with him (of course) and the above argument from design is one of the main reasons. Like Father, like son. The existence we know would have been in the mind of the creator. By looking at creation, we can determine something of the creator. With Man at the pinnacle of creation, we can look inside, and determine somethings about the creator. He values freedom of will, for example. He is intelligent. An effect can not exceed the cause, so He must be more than we are when we look inside.

 

[Spock]

1. In the beginning there was nothing; nothing in the sense that there was no matter, time, energy, or even space of the kind that defines the dimensions of our universe; nothing but infinite nothingness.
2. The nothingness that was of infinite dimension was, however, not a void; it was what might be called pure existence or absolute being: Pure existence because we exist, and if we exist, something must have always existed; existence was not created. Absolute being in the sense that we are “human” beings- dynamic, not static entities.
3. This nature of existence and being we recognize in our own self-awareness as an impetus to think, to feel, to act. The object that provides such impetus is the mind.
4. Our mind consists of a physical part, the brain, and a spiritual part that has it origin in the infinite nothingness that gives impetus to the universe, the mind of God. So my thesis about how God informs the universe can be found in the analog that is us. We are made in His image.
5. So here we have arrived at the mind/body problem: how does the spiritual interact and give impetus to the material part our bodies through the agency of the brain? For it is in the solution of the mind/body problem that the challenge can be met, namely, what can I say about the creator without resorting to faith, revelation and such?.
6. I contend that the mind/body problem - the interaction of spiritual substance with matter - can be explained on the basis of a spatial duality that exists at the ground of reality.
7. When Descartes invented analytical geometry he made the tacit assumption that every point in space can be represented by a number; and every number represents a point in space. This was later called the Dedekind Cantor axiom of continuity. It applies to the real numbers and continuous space.
8. However, let us retan the first part of DCAC assumption of step 7 - every point can be represented by a number, but let us discard the second part and assume that not every number is associated with a point- an equally valid assumption- then what is described is discrete space.
9. What the assumptions in steps 7 and 8 mean is that we are able to use an abstract element (numbers) to describe a “physical” element (space), the first step for merging the spiritual with the actual. .
10. The rational numbers are associated with the first transfinite cardinal number, aleph(0) and the real numbers are associated with the second, aleph(1). I assume the continuum hypothesis holds and the aleph(1) = c, the continuum. Aleph(0) and the rational numbers describe discrete space; aleph(1) and the real numbers describe continuous space.
11. Both aleph(0) and aleph(1) are infinities. Aleph(1) subsumes aleph(0) and, in fact, aleph(0) can be subtracted from aleph(1) without diminishing aleph(1) in the least amount. This allows us to postulate that the material universe (the lesser infinity) is created from discrete space; and the spiritual component has the nature of continuous space (the greater infinity), which is everywhere infinite.
12. Since there are “gaps” in discrete space as explained by the rational numbers; the dual nature of reality can be explained by envisioning the gaps being “filled” with the continuous space (the spiritual substance). In other words, all matter is permeated with a spiritual substance. Or as Teilhard de Chardin’s argued:

"It is impossible to deny that, deep within ourselves, an ‘interior’ appears at the heart of beings, as it were seen through a rent. This is enough to ensure that, in one degree or another, this ‘interior’ should obtrude itself as existing everywhere in nature from all time. Since, the stuff of the universe has an inner aspect at one point of itself, there is necessarily a double aspect to its structure, that is to say in every region of space and time—in the same way, for instance, as it is granular: co-extensive with their Without, there is a Within to things." (The Phenomenon of Man pg56)

This post merely provides a basis for a much longer argument about the nature of creation, so if you are really interested in an answer to your challenge and have the intellectual wherewithal to understand my argument I will continue. Next stop: how does God create matter from discrete space?

Ok, I read it. A few observations.

1. This is not what the OP stipulates. We start from the assumption that this physical universe was created. It does not say that there was “nothing”. There was some creator, or creative force, which dwells in some realm, different from our universe. We make no stipulation about this realm, nor about the nature of this creator. To give an example: Strictly speaking black holes are not part of our universe. There is no communication between our universe and the black hole. If a black hole would be a universe of its own right (not logically impossible), then the hypothetical beings in that realm could not know about our existence. They could imagine that their realm was created by us, or they could imagine that their world is the result of some natural force - and this second assumption would be right.
2. I disagree. Our mind is the function of our brain. The brain is a physical organ, but its activity or function is not a physical object. But that does not imply something supernatural, or “spiritual”. Example: our leg muscles are physical, but their activity - walking - is not a physical object. Yet that does not imply a “spiritual” dimension.

Since I do not accept your two basic stipulations, the rest simply hangs in the air.