The mechanism metaphor: Did a microwave oven create the universe in its own image?

[PseuTonym]

Can not God be a mechanistic creator of the rest of the universe, which by extension would also exist necessarily?

Would not that be more reasonable, than to believe in self-deterministic causality, which cannot be understood in comparison to all other forms of causality?

I created this thread in order to have a place to examine the above text. I am hoping to motivate a rewriting of the text so that various things that are hinted at become explicit. I didn’t write the above quoted text myself, so in a sense I have no authority to rewrite the text.

There is always a potential problem when a reader reads between the lines. The reader might misinterpret something. However, if the crux of the difficulty that the thread was created to resolve is a result of a combination of attitudes and conclusions already obtained rather than ideas and reasoning that you are actively struggling with, then you – as the person who created the thread – might (perhaps without intending to) — arbitrarily dictate mutually contradictory answers to various questions of interpretation, as those questions of interpretation arise later in the thread.

In other words, as the writer of the original message of the thread, it is possible for you to exploit, to your own detriment, your authority to interpret your own message. To avoid exceeding your own authority in that manner, at some point you should rewrite the original post, rather than providing vague indications of how somebody else might attempt to rewrite it.

 

[blase6]

I guess my short posts are not enough to explain my whole perception to others. I will have to write something later; I don’t have the time right now to go all into everything.

 

[PseuTonym]

I guess my short posts are not enough to explain my whole perception to others.

Actually, you have written plenty about free will, and those of us who have been following the discussions have a grasp of how you are thinking. The problem is not that your posts are too short. It’s a virtue to keep your messages brief. Your writing that I quoted in the first message of this thread is short enough that we can analyze it. If it had been longer, then it might have seemed too much like Mount Everest, and I would not have ventured to create this thread.

I will have to write something later

Please do not go to the trouble of writing something longer than what you have been writing. Instead, simply wait for specific questions in this thread, and respond to those questions. However, please focus on creating your own revision-in-progress of what I quoted in the first post of this thread.

 

[truetofaith]

I created this thread in order to have a place to examine the above text. I am hoping to motivate a rewriting of the text so that various things that are hinted at become explicit. I didn’t write the above quoted text myself, so in a sense I have no authority to rewrite the text.

There is always a potential problem when a reader reads between the lines. The reader might misinterpret something. However, if the crux of the difficulty that the thread was created to resolve is a result of a combination of attitudes and conclusions already obtained rather than ideas and reasoning that you are actively struggling with, then you – as the person who created the thread – might (perhaps without intending to) — arbitrarily dictate mutually contradictory answers to various questions of interpretation, as those questions of interpretation arise later in the thread.

In other words, as the writer of the original message of the thread, it is possible for you to exploit, to your own detriment, your authority to interpret your own message. To avoid exceeding your own authority in that manner, at some point you should rewrite the original post, rather than providing vague indications of how somebody else might attempt to rewrite it.

Make a chicken pot pie in your microwave & stop wasting your time & everyone else’s!

 

[truetofaith]

Make a chicken pot pie in your microwave & stop wasting your time & everyone else’s!

That’s my opinion, pal…your Original Question sounds like blasphemy!

 

[blase6]

I think I should add that it is only recently that I learned that it is Church dogma that God has freedom. Before that, I figured that for a being which can be only good, to say that it could choose between good and evil was meaningless.

From that, I reasoned that if God does not have freedom, then his eternal act is necessary. Then all spiritual and physical reality, though distinct from God, still exists necessarily as an extension of God’s necessary act. Thus this world would be the only possible world. I thought that a world which exists necessarily would reasonably be different from this strange world, but since so much of what I perceive as existing does not make sense to me, I figured that I still might be correct in this world existing necessarily.

Of course that raises tons of problems with the idea of creatures having freedom. From my constant arguing and searching on here, I can conclude that freedom is “what a person has.” I cannot claim to understand the nature of freedom. From my perception of the world, things which exist prior to an event necessitate that event. I know that I am a conscious being, but I do not see how it is necessary that I have freedom. For me, freedom just seems like a false conclusion drawn from one’s intimate perception of the events relative to that person.

 

[PseuTonym]

I planned to stay on the topic of the text that I quoted at the beginning of this thread, but your new post in this thread is interesting.

From that, I reasoned that if God does not have freedom, then his eternal act is necessary. Then all spiritual and physical reality, though distinct from God, still exists necessarily as an extension of God’s necessary act. Thus this world would be the only possible world. I thought that a world which exists necessarily would reasonably be different from this strange world

If this world will pass away, then in what sense was the creation of this world an eternal act?

Consider Matthew 24:35
Sky and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Link:
catholic.org/bible/book.php?bible_chapter=24&id=47

 

[blase6]

I planned to stay on the topic of the text that I quoted at the beginning of this thread, but your new post in this thread is interesting.

If this world will pass away, then in what sense was the creation of this world an eternal act?

Consider Matthew 24:35
Sky and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Link:
catholic.org/bible/book.php?bible_chapter=24&id=47

The language of the Bible is very symbolic so most of the meanings are ambiguous. Whether or not the current physical world has a definite end or not, there is nothing preventing God from creating a world with a terminating existence as part of the eternal act. But from what the Church teaches about persons existing forever and such, it is reasonable to believe that God will never allow his creation to cease to exist. It is more fitting for an eternal act to involve eternal creation.

 

[PseuTonym]

Then all spiritual and physical reality, though distinct from God, still exists necessarily as an extension of God’s necessary act. Thus this world would be the only possible world. I thought that a world which exists necessarily would reasonably be different from this strange world

When you refer to “the only possible world” above, do you have in mind:
#1 the laws of nature?

Or do you have in mind:
#2 the laws of nature, and also every detail of every situation and event in the history of the universe?

We could create an analogy between the laws of nature and the rules of the game chess.
If you have in mind #1, then just the rules of chess must be exactly as they are.
If you have in mind #2, then there is a pattern that includes all the specific games of chess that are ever played, including the details of when and where they are played.

 

[blase6]

When you refer to “the only possible world” above, do you have in mind:
#1 the laws of nature?

Or do you have in mind:
#2 the laws of nature, and also every detail of every situation and event in the history of the universe?

We could create an analogy between the laws of nature and the rules of the game chess.
If you have in mind #1, then just the rules of chess must be exactly as they are.
If you have in mind #2, then there is a pattern that includes all the specific games of chess that are ever played, including the details of when and where they are played.

Option 2 would be more reasonable. It is reasonable to assume that if God wants to create, he wants to create all that can exist. So an infinite creation which contains all possible events seems most likely like what God would create.

 

[PseuTonym]

Option 2 would be more reasonable. It is reasonable to assume that if God wants to create, he wants to create all that can exist. So an infinite creation which contains all possible events seems most likely like what God would create.

If government agents believe that some people have committed no crime, then how many ways are there for government agents to torture those people?

Perhaps there is a conflict between what you claim is reasonable (infinite variety) and God’s mercy and sense of justice that would persuade God to eventually intervene.

 

[blase6]

If government agents believe that some people have committed no crime, then how many ways are there for government agents to torture those people?

Perhaps there is a conflict between what you claim is reasonable (infinite variety) and God’s mercy and sense of justice that would persuade God to eventually intervene.

A few thoughts:

1. If evil is the absence of a due good, then God would create a world where every due good exists. But it is plain that this is not the case.
2. Maybe our understanding of God abhorring evil has problems. I don’t know about moral evil, but it might as well be that God doesn’t care about metaphysical evil/ suffering or it is part of his plan. For example, he may want pain to exist to prevent animals from damaging their bodies.

It doesn’t make sense to me why an infinite God wouldn’t produce infinite creation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Can not God be a mechanistic creator of the rest of the universe, which by extension would also exist necessarily?

This sounds like an argument for deism.

 

[davidv]

A few thoughts:

1. If evil is the absence of a due good, then God would create a world where every due good exists.

And so it was. See Genesis chapter 1

But it is plain that this is not the case.

True. But it did not start out that way. Who is responsible for this lack of goodness? See Genesis chapter 3 and your own sins.

1. Maybe our understanding of God abhorring evil has problems. I don’t know about moral evil, but it might as well be that God doesn’t care about metaphysical evil/ suffering or it is part of his plan. For example, he may want pain to exist to prevent animals from damaging their bodies.

The Church has demonstrated a far better understanding of God, than what is presented above.

It doesn’t make sense to me why an infinite God wouldn’t produce infinite creation.

Could your “sense” be wrong?

 

[Bahman]

When you refer to “the only possible world” above, do you have in mind:
#1 the laws of nature?

Or do you have in mind:
#2 the laws of nature, and also every detail of every situation and event in the history of the universe?

We could create an analogy between the laws of nature and the rules of the game chess.
If you have in mind #1, then just the rules of chess must be exactly as they are.
If you have in mind #2, then there is a pattern that includes all the specific games of chess that are ever played, including the details of when and where they are played.

Number one only under theism. Yet it is problematic since it could not accommodate free will.

Number two is meaningless.

 

[blase6]

The Church has demonstrated a far better understanding of God, than what is presented above.

Could your “sense” be wrong?

No one of us understands God fully. I think I am more inclined to believe what I experience about God, than for what someone apart from me wrote or said.

 

[davidv]

No one of us understands God fully. I think I am more inclined to believe what I experience about God, than for what someone apart from me wrote or said.

That is your prerogative. But, choosing go it alone is not likely to end well.

 

[blase6]

That is your prerogative. But, choosing go it alone is not likely to end well.

If I was “choosing to go it alone” I wouldn’t be on this forum anyway.

 

[davidv]

If I was “choosing to go it alone” I wouldn’t be on this forum anyway.

Then why does it appear that all attempts to show your errors, are dismissed out-of-hand.

 

[blase6]

Then why does it appear that all attempts to show your errors, are dismissed out-of-hand.

Because they all usually fail in some way to address a preconception that I have. I spent a long time seriously thinking out my own philosophy based on what I see to be real, for a long time before I came back to this forum.