L
lemonbeam
Guest
If God is immaterial, not occupying any space, yet omnipresent and transcending the universe, is God a failed hypothesis?
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Perhaps our entire universe is as small as a tiny atom in God’s hand. To think of God as smaller (or more limited) than He is might be more of a failed hypothesis. Imagine a God greater and more more wise and more just and more loving than your wildest dreams. Wouldn’t God be bigger than even that?
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
–God (Isaiah 55:9)
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
God, the Father, is a principle. How big is a principle? How old is a principle? How material is a principle?
A principle is, in concept, above what it is a principle about. Since God is about the universe/nature, God is referred to as “super-natural” along with all of the other principles (angels).
Are all principles “failed hypotheses”? If so, all of Science is a bit of a failure.
A principle is, in concept, above what it is a principle about. Since God is about the universe/nature, God is referred to as “super-natural” along with all of the other principles (angels).
Are all principles “failed hypotheses”? If so, all of Science is a bit of a failure.
L
liquidpele
Guest
It depends on how you define God now doesn’t it? Think about how much the definition has changed in the last 3000 years, from one that came down and talked with you and destroyed cities, to one that lives in another dimension or something. A hypothesis has to be specific and testable, and God is nothing of the sort, so I’d say it’s not even a hypothesis but just an idea.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I presume you think there is a contradiction between “immaterial, not occupying any space” and “omnipresent”.
- God is defined as the Creator and does not “exist” in the same way as that which is created.
- Creation entails **sustaining **that which is created.
- So if God were not omnipresent in any way it would indeed be a failed hypothesis!
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
The definition as far as I can tell, has never changed. What has changed is peoples (the masses) education and misunderstandings on the issue.
I have found no evidence that the definition has ever changed (and I have sought such out)(except to the atheist who defines God such as to make it unreal).
When an idea is resolved to be true, hasn’t it been tested?
L
liquidpele
Guest
The education and understanding of God is not the definition of God? I mean, I realize that a rock is a rock regardless of how we choose to define it, but God is abstract and thus all we have to go on is the understanding of him. It’s that changing that has made God’s image change for us. Whether there is a God and whether he changed us unknown, thus all we have to go on is our understanding and beliefs about such a being which surely did change quite drastically throughout the years. You can’t just say “Well we now have better understanding, so we’re sure we’re right about it THIS time” and assume that it’s correct now when I’m sure people thought the exact same thing throughout history.
Umm… no? Maybe I misunderstood your point… because that sounds ridiculous.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
The defining characteristic of God the Father, the First Cause, has always been “the Creator”. That means that whatever created the universe is God by definition. This turns out to be exactly what was meant very long ago in Scriptures.
The “image of God” is what people tend to change as they decide whether they like God or not. That image does not match the definition. That is why so many, so often, say that God is “unknown to man” or “inconceivable” or “mysterious”. There is incentive to keep reminding people that they have the wrong “image of God” in mind.
If it sounds ridiculous, then you can bank on having misunderstood.
Something can’t be “resolved to be true” until it is tested. The idea of God has indeed been tested and proven. What is confusing you is why such hasn’t been presented to the public just as Science or mathematics might do.
But if you haven’t noticed, recently no one in the public ever actually sees the real Science experiments. They hear reports and editorials which happen to give spin on specifics. Real Science never gets actually seen any more by the general public unless it is some mundane thing for the young.
There are reasons for saying that something is true yet refusing to show you the proof.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Ah, okay, fair enough. Then The creator as Zeus and every other God throughout the history of mankind must be the same being right? Why go through all the ritual and specifics of Catholicism then, if all that really matters is that it’s the creator?
No. First of all, some things don’t have a definite truth to them. Two people can argue over a painting’s meaning or even something more pronounced like a color, but neither has to be right or wrong.If it sounds ridiculous, then you can bank on having misunderstood.
Something can’t be “resolved to be true” until it is tested. The idea of God has indeed been tested and proven. What is confusing you is why such hasn’t been presented to the public just as Science or mathematics might do.
But if you haven’t noticed, recently no one in the public ever actually sees the real Science experiments. They hear reports and editorials which happen to give spin on specifics. Real Science never gets actually seen any more by the general public unless it is some mundane thing for the young.
There are reasons for saying that something is true yet refusing to show you the proof.
Second, science has a thing called “peer review”… remember the cold fusion deal about a decade or two ago, where others couldn’t reproduce the results? This is how science tries to stay honest. You’re arguing that because you don’t do the experiments, you’re taking things on faith… but you don’t HAVE to… you COULD do the experiments if you wanted! You’re taking a position of ignorance and thus claiming the work of others is questionable because you haven’t personally tested it. Let me ask you, have you personally tested all the medications a doctor has given you? Why trust the doctor?
Third, lots of people believing something doesn’t make it true. People believed in witches a few hundred years ago, or that the earth was flat or the sun went around the earth or that time was not relative. People are wrong more often than not - including about their interpretations of scientific evidence… which is why science is constantly changing and refining itself - but remember, new explanations have to account for old evidence too, you can’t just start over completely - you’re always constrained by the reality of the data from your experiments.
W
Watchman
Guest
Zeus was not the creator. Zeus had parents, Rhea and Cronus. Just saying.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Haha, you’re *technically *correct, which is the best kind
A
Areopagite
Guest
When talking about immaterial beings being “present” in a particular material location, this does not mean that their bodies occupy that place (because they have no bodies) but means that they are acting at that place. For example, with angels and demons, they are said to be present in a place when they are making some effect there (which could be a lot of things, including demonic possession or telekinetically moving things about the room). However, since they don’t have bodies, you could also say they don’t exist in the material universe at all. Same thing with God. He does not occupy space in that He does not have a body with which to occupy the space (except for Christ’s body, but I’m referring to God purely in his intrinsic divine nature and not his incarnate human nature that isn’t intrinsic to Him). So, in that sense He transcends the universe. However, He also is acting in every part of the universe as stated by the doctrine of conservation. This states that God actively maintains things in existence. The universe doesn’t simply take on independent existence after its creation but it necessarily willed to continue to exist by God. ** In that sense, God is everywhere, because he acts everywhere.**
Does that make sense? Sort of? Or not at all?
This relates to the cosmological argument of God’s existence which is raging on another thread currently. If Thomas Aquinas is right, the proof for the existence of God is a deductive argument and does not require testing (or … I might be wrong). It’s like math. The soundness of a mathematical formula does not really rely on consistent right answers but rather correct reasoning from first principles (or axioms). But I may be wrong. I’m open to major correction on this.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Once again, you have misunderstood something. Nothing you said seems related to what I said.
F
fhansen
Guest
The CC never thinks she has or even could have some sort of exhaustive understanding of God-only that we understand His nature and will better now than before-and presumably will continue to. But a lot of it has to do with how** we** change- how the gospel-which we believe to be Gods revelation-has changed us. To hear, for example, that we’re to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves is one thing, which we may or may not honestly think is even possible, believer and unbeliever alike. To assume we might be practicing it already is another thing, and to actually live it is another thing yet. But if we do come to start living it, we begin to find out that the gospel isn’t teaching something impossible and we begin to understand more about the reality and wisdom of God and His will.
L
liquidpele
Guest
The problem is that it confuses existence and comparison. Proofs technically only compare… something equals, does not equal, is less than, greater than, is a derivative of, etc. The reality of the comparison helps to understand the nature of the reality it represents. For something to be accepted as existing, evidence must exist… you can’t use math or proofs to determine if an apple exists in my hand anymore than you can God.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Whatever the real “Truth” is, that is “God”. You don’t have to know what the truth actually is of a situation to know that there actually is a truth involved. Can there EVER be a situation where there is no truth involved (not counting what lawyers say in a courtroom)? Every situation has a truth or a reality. That is why God/Truth/Reality is in ALL places and regardless of what anyone thinks concerning what other god might be doing something, the Truth/Reality is a God that would be the real dictator of the situation.
This is necessarily true regardless of anyone not really knowing what that truth actually was. Reality created the universe. This can be known without knowing how.
The Judaic/Christian and even Muslim worship is based on worshiping whatever the real truth is regardless of not knowing what it is. Each religion tends to assume their own understanding of exactly which truth is more real, but they each are founded on the idea that there is a real Truth and that real Truth is what has control.
Science worships the same God but focuses on the more material and provable aspects.
Jesus proclaimed that you should LOVE TRUTH with all of your heart mind and soul in order to obtain a clear “enlightened” state of living WITH the truth rather than being confounded and frustrated every time you turned around.
A
Areopagite
Guest
I’m not saying that the Cosmological Proof for God’s existence is mathematical, I’m saying that it’s a deductive argument (and, once again, I’m open to correction on this by Thomists … perhaps the Cosmological Proof is in fact inductive in some way … in fact, maybe it is). But are you saying deductive arguments necessarily do not pertain to existence but just comparison?
Comparison, in any case, necessarily deals with existence. Any logical proposition can be said to compare the subject with the predicate. “The horse is brown” compares a particular “horse” with the color “brown” and sees if there is a connection between them. You could even say, that “God is an existing thing” is comparing “God” with “existing thing” and seeing if they connect in some way.
You can’t use proofs that an apple exists in your hand? Obviously, math can’t prove that, since it only deal with numbers. But I would say that by looking at the apple in your hand would be a proof. Also, there are inductive proofs, like in the physical sciences, don’t you agree, which are not based on repetitions in nature? The more I think about too, Aquinas’ proof might be inductive … I haven’t thought about that enough. In any case, I would say that you appear to be narrowing “proof” down to only its mathematical application, and I don’t think you want to do that, but hey, I’m open to correction.
L
lemonbeam
Guest
If god does not occupy space, then “he” is not omnipresent? Isn’t there a contradiction?
L
lemonbeam
Guest
Anyone??
T
tonyrey
Guest
“In God we live, move and have our being” It is truer to say “Space (and time) is in God” but our human terms and categories are inadequate when we refer to “He Who Is”.
- Status