Philosophical problems with God and Time

[fide]

That sounds super interesting If I ever get the money I might buy the book, now I want to read more about that. Thanks ! I am still not sure how can the future be predicted, if it is just a physical reality and not this “arrow” type system

I would recommend, before theoretical physics, you look into the wisdom of the saints, and the life of prayer. Truth is in God - not in theoretical physics. Prayer is communion with Him, who is all wisdom and truth. In prayer you can meet Him, in ever-growing closeness and intensity, if you persevere, and grow in the life of grace.

Here’s a (free) book that can help you begin - you can read it on-line or download it:
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/saints/3ways.htm

 

[fide]

When you take a look at all the lives of the saints, you start to realize all of them experienced the mystical marriage before their death. It’s incredible.

All Saints, Pray for us!

ALL are called to holiness and to the perfection of charity. In that teaching of the Church, it follows that ALL are called to that perfection of prayer. We need to trust God, and pursue Him on the path laid out for us in the teachings of the Church, by holy grace in the sacraments, by the power of His Truth in Holy Scripture, and in the earnest embrace of Him, more and more, in prayer.

There is a path of growth in prayer - from well-prayed vocal prayer, to stages of mental prayer or “mediation”, and then on to stages or levels of infused contemplation. The path is walked one step at a time - but it can be walked, with perseverance and sincerity.

 

[Teek]

Another problem is a premise in one of the cosmological arguments, the one that has this premise : Everything that begins to exsist has a cause.

But, that seems to be the problem. Do we know that really everything in the physical world began to exsist ? Sure most things we observe are like this but how do we not know atoms didn’t exsist since the start or something more basic ?

They probably did exist since the start, when God created all from nothing. The start was their beginning. But I don’t think you meant that.

What is the alternative to atoms having a beginning? Atoms that always existed? If they existed before time, did they have space then? How did they enter time?

Is this proposed as a model for a universe without the need for God? If so, what moved the atoms from outside spacetime to inside spacetime, and where did spacetime itself come from? If they eternally existed outside of time and space—which they can’t because by definition they take up space (are matter)—wouldn’t they require an agent to change their eternal position?

What things that we observe do not have a beginning? You said most…

If there were atoms that always existed, does it change that everything that begins has to have a cause? We know there are things that begin. What began them?

I just want to clarify what you are proposing before I wrestle with it too much…

 

[fisherman_carl]

Another problem is a premise in one of the cosmological arguments, the one that has this premise : Everything that begins to exsist has a cause.

But, that seems to be the problem. Do we know that really everything in the physical world began to exsist ? Sure most things we observe are like this but how do we not know atoms didn’t exsist since the start or something more basic ?

St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t think you could prove philosophically that there could not have been an infinite path. Therefore, his belief in a creation event was based on Revelation.

As far as can we know that atoms didn’t always exist? According to Aquinas we can not know. However, Aquinas`5 Ways arguments for God are irrespective of time. His First Cause argument for instance is an argument for an uncaused First Cause of a series of causes that are not temporally ordered but are of a type of sequence in which all causes, especially the First Cause, must always be in existence in order to have the final cause be in existence.

Having said that I find it intuitive that there is not an infinite past. Most arguments against an infinite past appeal to the impossibility of having an infinite number of anything. If you can say that you have had an infinite number of something that means you could add anything else to it already. But since we continue to add time then we must not have reached infinite. In fact infinity is a theoretical limit that is never actually reached because you could also add more to any number.

 

[omgriley]

ALL are called to holiness and to the perfection of charity. In that teaching of the Church, it follows that ALL are called to that perfection of prayer. We need to trust God, and pursue Him on the path laid out for us in the teachings of the Church, by holy grace in the sacraments, by the power of His Truth in Holy Scripture, and in the earnest embrace of Him, more and more, in prayer.

There is a path of growth in prayer - from well-prayed vocal prayer, to stages of mental prayer or “mediation”, and then on to stages or levels of infused contemplation. The path is walked one step at a time - but it can be walked, with perseverance and sincerity.

Amen. It’s a struggling, and at times daunting task. But it cannot be denied that this is definitely not reserved for the saintly among us. The mystical contemplation, or infused contemplation, is God’s will for all of us! By His grace we can attain it.

I about to by a book titled, The Ways of Mental Prayer by Vital Lehodey. I hear it’s an excellent aid for the prayer life.

 

[omgriley]

As far as can we know that atoms didn’t always exist? According to Aquinas we can not know. However, Aquinas`5 Ways arguments for God are irrespective of time. His First Cause argument for instance is an argument for an uncaused First Cause of a series of causes that are not temporally ordered but are of a type of sequence in which all causes, especially the First Cause, must always be in existence in order to have the final cause be in existence.

Exactly. For Aquinas, it didn’t very much matter if the universe always existed. The very fact that it exists here and now proves the First Uncaused Cause.

 

[jfz178]

I recommend people interested in this topic watch a two-part cable documentary titled, “Everything and Nothing.” It is excellent. Basically, some of the things science can now prove beyond a doubt are:

• Atomic particles can spontaneously generate out of nothing. In fact, it can only happen in “nothing,” a pure vacuum.
• We do know how the universe started. In fact, it has been possible to re-create a picture of it several hours after the “big bang” with a high degree of certainty that it is accurate.

This does not rule out the role of God. The big bang was surely caused by Him and the spontaneously generating particles are certainly gifts from Him. But our old views are clearly out of date.

 

[Teek]

It is excellent. Basically, some of the things science can now prove beyond a doubt are:

Atomic particles can spontaneously generate out of nothing. In fact, it can only happen in “nothing,” a pure vacuum.

This has been scientifically proven and demonstrated?

A pure vacuum is not nothing. It is decidedly something.

We do know how the universe started. In fact, it has been possible to re-create a picture of it several hours after the “big bang” with a high degree of certainty that it is accurate.

How does several hours after it started prove how it started?

 

[Edward_H]

There are a number of sort of interlocking propositions that Aquinas constructed, and I think you have to look at them together in order to evaluate his argument in toto.

I can’t remember the full argument…but there are various “ways to” come to this knowledge of God.

One is by way of perfection…we can observe that in both the material and immaterial world there are “degrees” of this or that…brightness, size, speed (all material) and on the immaterial side there are also things that have degrees…love, desire, happiness, etc.

Each of these can be viewed as a point along a continuum…something else can be found to be brighter, larger, faster…and we know that we can love one thing more than we love another thing, we can desire one thing more than another thing…and so forth.

So I think Aquinas argued in his way of “perfection” that these states of imperfection if you will, argue for a state of perfection. If something can always be found to be “more” of one thing than other…then it argues that there is a perfection, that perfection is God, all truth, beauty and goodness converge on this God of Perfection.

Another way to the knowledge of God is by way of causation.
Everything has a cause
No effect can precede its cause
Nothing can cause itself
Nothing can be the effect of an infinite causal chain. (this is the key premise).
Therefore there must be something which itself was not caused.
That first mover is God.

 

[jfz178]

A pure vacuum is not nothing. It is decidedly something. Yep, that’s one of the main points of the documentary.

You should watch the documentary. It’s pretty interesting how they figured it out. I am not a science buff. I would probably get the explanation wrong. But if you are interested in the topic, check it out.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Atomic particles can spontaneously generate out of nothing.

A metaphysical impossibility. You can’t get something coming from absolutely nothing. The so-called nothing that these scientists talk about is not really nothing.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Aquinas’ 5 Ways - The unmoved mover, the First Cause, the argument from contingency, the degrees of being, and the design argument all point to a First Cause. Aquinas then goes on to demonstrate what that first cause looks like for several pages before he calls it God.

 

[Edward_H]

Well done. Thank you

 

[Teek]

Thanks! I’m sorry, I know you recommended the documentary. I haven’t had time to check it out and I still replied to you. Thanks for your patience!

 

[DetectiveNiko]

I will give it a look thanks !

 

[DetectiveNiko]

Everything has a cause

Well, I have seen atheists decline that everything that beings to exsist has a cause because they don’t believe it to be “proven” that that is the case and I never know how to answer. By this, they try to refer to the universe always existing, which we can’t say is true or false, so I believe apologists should use this argument less, (Looking at you William Lane Craig ) If you got a way of responding I would like to hear so.
Also, I had a trouble with the argument of perfection because it implies that goodness is necessarily a thing. But how do we know something is actually good and not good because we think its good. It presupposes objective goodness, which for atheists don’t exist (Unless they talk about what makes a species stay more alive in evolution). Another problem is that comparisons can be made among things without presupposing maximum values to those things. Simply because things exist in degrees, it does not follow that something exists in the maximum or minimum of degree.

 

[Edward_H]

Well if those atheists that you mention were actually smart enough, they’d realize that they assume that they themselves exist; otherwise, there’d be no “rejection” possible. The actor (that exists) rejects a proposition.

Was there a moment when they didn’t exist?

So you can begin there and help them realize that they exist within time and that there is an ordering in both space and time.

No effect can precede its cause.

With respect to “degrees of things”, these people, if they were smart (and not just practicing to be “clever”) would realize that no comparison would be possible if there were not “a vanishing point”. For them to evaluate even good or bad arguments (supporting or refuting God, for instance) presupposes an objective of truth.

So again, if they were actually people using their intellect well, they’d understand that their own ability to “reject” arguments requires an objective truth.

If I were you…I wouldn’t spend any more time with these “atheists”, at least on this topic.

Instead, we should become simply better friends to our friends…go out with them for a burger, a coke or a beer, and listen to them about their day and help them in ordinary affairs.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

So you can begin there and help them realize that they exist within time and that there is an ordering in both space and time

Well the things inside certaintly didn’t have a beginning, but who says space itself never exsisted? And there is potential theorys that explain how the universe always exsisted

| EarthSky

Reports of the death of the Big Bang have been greatly exaggerated. Big Bang theory is alive and well. At the same time, our universe may not have a beginning or end.

earthsky.org

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

phys.org

With respect to “degrees of things”, these people, if they were smart (and not just practicing to be “clever”) would realize that no comparison would be possible if there were not “a vanishing point”. For them to evaluate even good or bad arguments (supporting or refuting God, for instance) presupposes an objective of truth

I wouldn’t say it necessarily follows from that there needs to exist a vanishing point. I think we can say something is good in comparison how good something is. We don’t determine if someone is tall based on maximum objective tallness, but a norm, a general tallness among the people. I would also preffer if you would not call people dumb :

if they were smart

People can be just misled, or think the wrong way.

If I were you…I wouldn’t spend any more time with these “atheists”, at least on this topic.

Instead, we should become simply better friends to our friends…go out with them for a burger, a coke or a beer, and listen to them about their day and help them in ordinary affairs.

Yeah I would agree that this has gone out of topic to some extent.

Regarding the friends part, trust me, I am doing my best. 75 % of my friends are non believers,atheists,or just non practicing catholics. And my best friends are all non believers except one person , but I still try my best to be a good friend.

 

[Teek]

It presupposes objective goodness, which for atheists don’t exist (Unless they talk about what makes a species stay more alive in evolution).

They can make the claim that goodness does not objectively exist, but as long as they behave in conformity to a framework that presupposes that there is a good they are operating outside of their professed world view.

If there is no God, there is no right and wrong, no good and evil. We are just complex biochemical monstrosities that evolved and can be 100% predicted. No. Free. Will. No culpability. No fault. No crime.

However, I know a lot of really good atheists! They put others ahead of themselves. They make sacrifices to do what is right. They are genetic anomalies: evolutionarily weak. At least in their own framework. Their genes are at a complete evolutionary disadvantage to any who wish to exploit them—so much so that they would have not evolved into who they are if their world view was correct—their particular genetic mutation would have been selected out of the running long, long ago. They don’t make sense in their own world view.

But if there is a God, then it makes sense that we insist “innocent until proven guilty.” There is no guilt if there is no wrong. Objective truth doesn’t care what they believe: it still is.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Well, I have seen atheists decline that everything that beings to exsist has a cause because they don’t believe it to be “proven” that that is the case and I never know how to answer. By this, they try to refer to the universe always existing, which we can’t say is true or false, so I believe apologists should use this argument less,

Well, they can claim that not everything that begins to exist has a cause. But on what rational basis do they make that claim? If they say the universe is an example then that is circular logic. Since it is the cause of the universe that is in question. So if you assume that it has no cause in order to answer the question if there is something that begins without a cause then that is circular logic. Or begging the question.

If the universe always existed then it didn’t begin to exist. So you can’t use that as an example of something that began to exist without a cause. But if the universe always existed it would still need a cause according to Aquinas’ 5 ways. It would need a first cause, not in the order of time, but in order of cause of existence at each moment. Even if the universe always existed not everything in the universe has always existed uncaused. There are a hierarchy of cause for my being in existence at this very moment independent of my beginning. These are traceable to a First Cause that must be in existence at every moment, but is itself uncaused, causing all else.

This First Cause must be something whose existence is its essence. Whereas everything else has existence, but is contingent.

That there is something in existence that is uncaused we all agree on. But something that begins to exist uncaused is irrational. That is something one would have to believe on blind faith. To assume the universe began to exist uncaused is also a blind faith assumption.