OK, let's assume a creator

[Spock]

If you concede that the one attribute allowed to God is that God is Maker of the universe, why should the Maker have less capacity for design and purpose for his creatures than the creatures have for designing their own purposes?

That is to say, are the creatures more capable of designing their own purposes than the Creator is? If so, why is that logical?

I did not ackowledge God at all. I talk about some creator.

Take a termite colony. They are not rational, thinking, sentient beings. Yet they create an amazingly complex structure - which looks like consciously “designed”. Of course it is not designed - in the usual sense of the word, it is not the product of a conscious activity. So we have an actual example of something which is not designed, but looks like designed. Therefore it is not a logical absurdity that the creator of this universe is not sentient either.

 

[Spock]

Which assumption do you think is less preposterous? Seriously, I mean.

Not relevant. We do not talk about “which assumption is more likely”. We talk about “is it a logical absurdity”. And I have said that before. It is irritating that I have to repeat simple things like that.

Termites do not “create.” Termites are fairly decent efficient causes. They use existing materials to build their structures. That is using the term “create” in a loose and overly-wide sense. The strict definition of create is different from that of efficient cause. The latter requires already existing material upon which to act; the former, by necessity, does not. You should know this after all this time in these fora.

I deny the validity of using “create” to be the equivalent of “create ex nihilo”. The distinction is very important. Beethoven “created” the Ninth, even if he used the pre-existing vibrations of air. Shakespeare “created Hamlet”, even if he used the pre-existing letters, words and concepts and “merely” rearranged them into a suitable sequence.

According to your usage, no one has ever “created” anything (except God), and so the word “create” cannot be used for any human or termite activity. And no, that is not a straw-man. The opposite (which is what you say) is equivocation.

 

[Spock]

But, that is a logical necessity: if a creator was indifferent to its creation, creation would be nothing more than pure, un-relational chaos. Instead, we find pure relational order.

Order is not design. Every showflake shows a nice, hexagonal pattern, and there is no need to assume a snowflake-maker. If a child would throw magnetically charged balls on the floor, they would “assemble” themselves into a pattern, and that would not prove that the child “cared” about the outcome.

That is logically incorrect. A “deistic creator” would be indifferent to its creation by definition. As I proposed above, creation could be nothing other than pure, un-relational chaos. That would assume, furthermore, limitation. If it is, therefore, a limited being, where is it hiding? Surely the Hubble could find it.

And there is no sign of “interest”. I showed that the lack of interest does not imply chaos. Yes, the creator could be a limited being (hardly could be anything else), but not part of this universe. So Hubble could not find it.

 

[Los_Angeles]

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.

No problem, happy to answer.

I concluded that the odds or probablity of the New Testament being false (same reason for the Catholic Church and the Old Testament) roughly speaking relative to the fact that billions and billions of people both book smart and street smart from multitudes of different backgrounds around the world using every available means of technology have been challenging it as the Truth for pretty much the the last 2000 years (even longer for the Old Testament), and there has has never been proven that the New Testament (again the same for the Catholic Church and the Old Testament) contains any contradictions or errors, and is both externally and internally consistient (meaning both believers and non-believers can find answers to any their questions).

I myself do not have all the answers, but I have found that there are answers to all the skeptical religious questions out there, if one is willing to look hard enough and do the research but ultimately since free-will is part of the equation, people are free to accept or deny the answers or even ask more questions.

That is my reason.

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

 

[Spock]

I do have a few comments though. You are denigrating our beliefs to assumptions. That is a little offensive and not a good tactic.

I am sorry you find it even a little offensive. The word “assumption” is as neutral as it gets. If you say that my lack of belief is also an assumption, I will not find it “offensive” in the least.

This Creator obviously had a reason to create it. All beings (with wills) do things that are dictated by motive.

No, it is not obvious. First, it could be that the creator is not even sentient. Second, even if we assume (no offense intended) that the creator is (or was) a purposeful being, it does not follow that every activity of the creator was actually purposeful. When we create something, there can be (and usually are) side products, which we did not intend to make. (Example: the delicious blue cheese called Roquefort was not intended, it was the random by-product of the activity of shepherd who left his lunch in the nearby cave.) It can be that our universe is simply the “trash can” for the creator, who intended to create something unimaginable for us, and the threw the leftover into the trash can. I do not offer this as a likely scenario, I only point out that it is possible.

May this assumed Creator bless you!

Thank you.

(I hope you take no offense by that part.)

Why would I? A good wish stemming from good will is always appreciated.

 

[Spock]

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.

Thank you very much. It feels good to know that you find my thoughts useful.

 

[Los_Angeles]

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.

The problem is that what you said is very eloquently spoken, but it does not satisfy what I think can be deduced from observation and/or reasoning powers alone without Divine guidance and revelations from God via the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church.

We cannot create Christian theology out of thin air. We need God.

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

 

[pnewton]

The problem is that what you said is very eloquently spoken, but it does not satisfy what I think can be deduced from observation and/or reasoning powers alone without Divine guidance and revelations from God via the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church.

We cannot create Christian theology out of thin air. We need God.

I do not believe we can either. I was just narrowly addressing the one issue of what it is possible that we might know without revelation.

 

[Spock]

With Man at the pinnacle of creation, we can look inside, and determine somethings about the creator.

This would be the pinnacle of pride. How can anyone claim that there are no beings in the universe who are much higher than humans?

An effect can not exceed the cause.

Incorrect assumption. Is the termite colony “less” than the builders of the colony? From observing the termite mound you cannot deduce that the termites have the knowledge of climate control, that there is a conscious designer within the colony.

 

[tonyrey]

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…

If you accept the validity of scientific explanation you must also accept the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. The onus is on you to explain** why **their explanation is irrational, i.e. due to purposeless processes. No philosophical or scientific discoveries would have been made if everyone had been content with “perhaps”…

 

[tonyrey]

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.

We have to decide whether this exquisite precision is accidental - the product of purposeless events - or not. I have no doubt which is the more adequate explanation.

 

[pnewton]

This would be the pinnacle of pride. How can anyone claim that there are no beings in the universe who are much higher than humans?

I did not. I said, “the pinnacle of creation”. Yes, it is possible that there are other created beings higher. I was specifically using “pinnacle” with in the universe of what is known. We can no know what we do not know.

Incorrect assumption. Is the termite colony “less” than the builders of the colony? From observing the termite mound you cannot deduce that the termites have the knowledge of climate control, that there is a conscious designer within the colony.

Yes. the colony is less. Mineral life, even the finest diamond, is less than animal life. You may not believe ex nihilo nihil fit (or as Billy Preston puts it, "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing), but I’ll side with Decartes (I think) on this and leave this disagreement for higher minds to hash out.

 

[Spock]

I did not. I said, “the pinnacle of creation”. Yes, it is possible that there are other created beings higher. I was specifically using “pinnacle” with in the universe of what is known. We can no know what we do not know.

Certainly. But even here on Earth to say that man is some kind of a “pinnacle” is anthropomorphism. It depends on what one thinks is the “greatest” attribute. When it comes to survival, the insects are much “higher” than humans. The shark is the ulitmate predator in water, it has survived millions of years, without changing. It is all a matter of viewpoint.

Yes. the colony is less. Mineral life, even the finest diamond, is less than animal life.
You compare incommensurables. By the way, saying “mineral life” is an oxymoron. The termite mound is an amazing structure, built by nonsentient beings. So your concept that “lesser” causes cannot create “higher” ends is incorrect. In many cases we understand that the sum is greater than the parts.

 

[The_Exodus]

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.

Assuming a creator, what can one deduce, using logic alone? Good question.

We can assume that “it” is powerful, intelligent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and determining.

Powerful follows from the fact, obviously, that it created the universe.

Intelligent follows from the fact that it has ordered the universe to be such and such a way: all the way from atoms to galaxies, and we notice a certain pattern that beings of the same kind abide by, and a medium in which they exist. We sometimes call the former “instincts,” though we notice them in micro-life. We sometimes call the latter “laws of nature” for it seems that things always follow them. It can also be seen that the creator must be infinitely “creative” in the sense that we notice the wonderful complexity and creativity in its creation.

Being spaceless follows from the fact that everything which is in space is made of matter and undergoes change. But everything which is made of matter and undergoes change does not have existence as a necessary property of itself. All matter receives existence in different modes - it passes out of one form of existence and into another. Hence, it cannot necessarily be existence as such. It therefore must receive it. Eventually we must come to the necessary being - the creator - who receives nothing but has existence as its essence.

Hence it follows that the creator necessarily determines, and is not determined by, his creation. It is the base or foundation from which all other things are built upon - the soil from which all contingent beings spring. Were it taken away, all things would cease to exist. And, since it is “all give” and since, ontologically, nothing is prior to or undergirds it, it cannot be determined by what is contingent, unless it has first willed to be (in which case, it would not be determined by another, but determining itself.)

 

[The_Exodus]

Order is not design. Every showflake shows a nice, hexagonal pattern, and there is no need to assume a snowflake-maker. If a child would throw magnetically charged balls on the floor, they would “assemble” themselves into a pattern, and that would not prove that the child “cared” about the outcome.

Yes, but in the case of the creator, one must take into account the existence of the magnetically charged balls which assemble themselves themselves… Your example holds no parity, because it equivocates a child (which has obviously not “created” anything) with the creator, who has created the beings which “assemble.”

 

[The_Exodus]

spock:

I deny the validity of using “create” to be the equivalent of “create ex nihilo”. The distinction is very important. Beethoven “created” the Ninth, even if he used the pre-existing vibrations of air. Shakespeare “created Hamlet”, even if he used the pre-existing letters, words and concepts and “merely” rearranged them into a suitable sequence.

Then how can you posit a “creator,” when nothing has been created, properly speaking? You are positing a prime mover, not a creator, and hence your original post equivocates because it uses these terms confusingly.

Much can still be deduced from a first cause, however: timelessness, spacelessness, intelligence (for the cause must be intelligent in order to “move” the universe in an intelligble way), and ontological priority.

spock:

According to your usage, no one has ever “created” anything (except God), and so the word “create” cannot be used for any human or termite activity. And no, that is not a straw-man. The opposite (which is what you say) is equivocation.

How, precisely, do you intend the word “create” to be taken? Do you mean you are assuming a “first arranger”? If so, all the same attributes follow, since it would take a creative and designing intellect to arrange the universe as it is. You yourself point this out in your Beethoven example.

 

[The_Exodus]

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

There are many issues here which need more attention.

First, the Catholic religion does not think one can deduce all of God’s attributes “sceintifically.”

As a matter of fact, “science” is just another term for “how we think about things we observe.” It is not some sort of “skeptic proof” or “fool proof” way of thinking. It rests on induction, just like the precepts of the moral law. Hume, Stuart Mill, Spencer, and such all saw this, and they were (at least) smart enough to realize that science, far from being some way of thinking that gets us outside skepticism, does nothing of the sort. Science cannot show our induction is accurate, or that the datum from which we reason or do science about is correct.

What the Church does profess is that the existence of God - not the “Christian” God or any specific qualities about his will - can be proved by reason; more specifically, by the law of causality. The logic of the scholastics, which affirms the validity of induction, can prove this. What we arrive at by reason alone are certain attributes about the “first cause” - that it is intelligent, powerful, ontologically first, timeless, etc.

What cannot be deduced are “articles of faith” about this being: that it has a son, was born of a virgin, offers and afterlife to its creation, etc.

Whatever you mean by the term “deity,” if it implies the latter - the God of faith, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I agree. But if you imply the former - a first cause - I disagree.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The Exodus,

Bravo!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MaxRosen

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

I pointed out this confirmation to you before, but you apparently missed it?

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Spock]

Powerful follows from the fact, obviously, that it created the universe.

It could create the universe, yes. Instead of powerful I would say: “capable”.

Intelligent follows from the fact that it has ordered the universe to be such and such a way: all the way from atoms to galaxies, and we notice a certain pattern that beings of the same kind abide by, and a medium in which they exist. We sometimes call the former “instincts,” though we notice them in micro-life. We sometimes call the latter “laws of nature” for it seems that things always follow them. It can also be seen that the creator must be infinitely “creative” in the sense that we notice the wonderful complexity and creativity in its creation.

That does not follow. A perfectly inanimate cause can create order. Think of the random movements of wind and tide, which can arrange 3 twigs to form a perfect triangle. (Before someone would repeat that it is not likely, I will preempt this. We are not talking about likelyhood, or economical explanation, we only only talk about what is a logical prerequisite.)

Being spaceless follows from the fact that everything which is in space is made of matter and undergoes change. But everything which is made of matter and undergoes change does not have existence as a necessary property of itself. All matter receives existence in different modes - it passes out of one form of existence and into another. Hence, it cannot necessarily be existence as such. It therefore must receive it. Eventually we must come to the necessary being - the creator - who receives nothing but has existence as its essence.

That does not follow either. “Necessary” existence is a philosophcial nonsense. The creator could be a scientist, or a group of scientists, who gathered the existing “material” in the realm they dwell, and created our universe. Or it could be that these scientists were working on some project, and left the unnecessary junk in the trashcan - which is our universe. The trashcan is just a “black hole” in their system.

Yes, but in the case of the creator, one must take into account the existence of the magnetically charged balls which assemble themselves themselves… Your example holds no parity, because it equivocates a child (which has obviously not “created” anything) with the creator, who has created the beings which “assemble.”

From the concept of “creation” it does not follow that the matter in our universe was created “ex nihilo”. It could have come from the matter already existing in the realm where the creator exists.

Then how can you posit a “creator,” when nothing has been created, properly speaking?

What does it mean: “properly speaking”? Create means to bring forth a new entity.