The properties of God.

[jkiernan56]

Just imagine, in eons to come (and without any heresy or blasphemy) that science found a way to define God, or to objectively describe His properties.
Wouldn’t that be something?

Actually, the documents of Vatican II pay high respect to our ability to reason, know and understand. It states that the certainty that God exists can be known through the “light of natural reason”. Clear reason can bring one to know THAT God exists. Who God is can only be understood and known through God’s revelation of Himself. That is where faith begins. Faith is not acknowledging something is true that can be proven to be factual. I do not have faith that gravity exists. I know it exists in truth. But when you can’t prove something is true and is beyond the “light of natural reason” … then it must be accepted as true within the context of knowing our limitations. All of reality cannot be understood by reason and reduced to a science project. I believe in Faith that God is a Holy Trinity - three Persons in One Nature/Act of Being. But it is not mindless Faith. My Faith in the Holy Trnity is based on understanding - a limited understanding, but understanding nontheless. Part of that stems from my understanding of the human family. God painted a self-portrait. Husband, Wife, Child analogous to the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The human family is an imperfect picture of God - but it is still a picture … .in fact John Paul 2 said that Christian Marriage is the MOST PERFECT image we have of God in this life (Theology of the Body).

 

[gearhead]

Oh, come on, jkiernan56:
What scientist would surrender the battleground as completely as you have done?
I wonder if there exists a true scientist who would concede that some things are forever beyond understanding.

Stephen Jay Gould did: stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Personally, I disagree with Gould. I think that any factual claim is potentially within the scope of science.

 

[jkiernan56]

BTW - to the OP: what do you mean by “universe”? Are you talking about just the limits of what we can experience and observe, or are you talking about everything, everywhere, in all parallel universes or what-have-you?

Don’t you mean “hypothetical” parallel universes? I can imagine alot of things in my mind, but it doesn’t make them true.

 

[gearhead]

Don’t you mean “hypothetical” parallel universes? I can imagine alot of things in my mind, but it doesn’t make them true.

Some explanations for quantum phenomena do invoke parallel universes, though I think they’re falling out of favour.

Mainly, though I was getting at the idea that things may exist in realms that we have no way of observing, and I wanted clarification on whether his “universe” was just what’s around us here or was the entirety of everything that exists in every realm, dimension, or what-have-you, even if it’s beyond where we could ever observe or travel to ourselves.

 

[tonyrey]

To: Tonyrey, post 109, and HelenaMT whose post 103 was quoted therein.
Have you ever philosophically thought about God as a transcendent being?
I ask because what you are describing sounds like a person [human] once known as a “jack of all trades.”
Have you ever considered how God philosophically describes Himself in Scripture?
I ask because what you are describing sounds like what was once known as a “Madison Avenue want ad”.

Have you ever tried dealing with the points made in a post rather than indulging in fanciful descriptions which are no more than argumenta ad hominem?

 

[grannymh]

Have you ever tried dealing with the points made in a post rather than indulging in fanciful descriptions which are no more than argumenta ad hominem?

No problem in skipping that.

Would you mind if I asked a flat out straight question? If a question is o.k. here it is:

Have you ever philosophically thought about God as a transcendent being?

 

[HelenaMT]

No problem in skipping that.

Would you mind if I asked a flat out straight question? If a question is o.k. here it is:

Have you ever philosophically thought about God as a transcendent being?

The concept of transcendance makes no sense to me. I cannot believe that something that can impact our physical reality, as God supposedly can, can be transcendant in the sense that He is completely beyond our perception of reality. If something can act on the physical, than it too has a physical component, in so far as it must have some mechanism through which it can actually cause a change. It may not be something we can see or measure at present, but it must exist nonetheless (IMO).

God willing something to happen means God is causing something physical to change, which means He is having some connection to the material at the time of the action. At least, that is the only thing that makes sense to my brain. I can’t wrap my head around the usual concept of transcendance, and it has never given me any sense of satisfation when I have tried. It has only made me feel more distant from my faith because it feels nonsensical and doesn’t seem to mesh with the way the universe seems to operate.

 

[greylorn]

Church dogma is dogma because it’s true.

What is the “no origin” principle and why does it need violating?

Thank you for your question. However, I have noted that your answer to all questions is a reversion to dogma. I did not open this thread to hear more dogma, but rather to get the personal thoughts and ideas of a few thoughtful individuals. Following the principles of Christ as noted in Matthew 7:6, I shall respectfully decline a reply.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you for your question. However, I have noted that your answer to all questions is a reversion to dogma. I did not open this thread to hear more dogma, but rather to get the personal thoughts and ideas of a few thoughtful individuals. Following the principles of Christ as noted in Matthew 7:6, I shall respectfully decline a reply.

If I explained how the existence of more or less that one God was logically impossible you would dismiss it because it also happens to be a dogmatic teaching of the Church.

 

[greylorn]

If I explained how the existence of more or less that one God was logically impossible you would dismiss it because it also happens to be a dogmatic teaching of the Church.

Not so. I would have to read your argument before dismissing it. If you choose to base such an argument on premises which consist of dogma, I would not even bother to peruse your argument.

However, if you can work up a credible argument based upon concepts from the only guaranteed true and certain Bible (the physical universe) using correct but common logic, I’d give your ideas an honest look.

 

[grannymh]

The concept of transcendance makes no sense to me. I cannot believe that something that can impact our physical reality, as God supposedly can, can be transcendant in the sense that He is completely beyond our perception of reality.

Transcendent also means beyond the limits of human nature. Beyond our nature is pure Spirit.

One speaks about impacting physical reality. How much of physical reality have humans impacted? We have impacted gravity with our airplanes and damming rivers. We have impacted the fatality of certain diseases. But not one, nor a collection of humans, can equal what would be needed to bring about the entire universe. Our own creations are limited. But God being Spirit is beyond the natural and therefore is beyond the physical laws of the universe. Thus the entire creation is His.

One can worry that if God were transcendent, He would be completely beyond our perception of reality. Here, we need to draw a line between those who believe that reality is only physical matter and those who know that the human person is both physical matter and spiritual soul. We need to draw a line between those who only believe in the physical matter of the universe, and those who believe that God is Spirit. We know that through our own spirituality, our very soul, we can easily perceive the reality of God Who is Spirit. We know the reality of God through our Faith.

 

[1holycatholic]

Not so. I would have to read your argument before dismissing it. If you choose to base such an argument on premises which consist of dogma, I would not even bother to peruse your argument.

However, if you can work up a credible argument based upon concepts from the only guaranteed true and certain Bible (the physical universe) using correct but common logic, I’d give your ideas an honest look.

Is scientism your dogma? That’s not an honest look at science or metaphysics.

Warpspeedpetey answered your question in post #102 before I had a chance to.

The moderators can close the thread now.

 

[HelenaMT]

Transcendent also means beyond the limits of human nature. Beyond our nature is pure Spirit.

One speaks about impacting physical reality. How much of physical reality have humans impacted? We have impacted gravity with our airplanes and damming rivers. We have impacted the fatality of certain diseases. But not one, nor a collection of humans, can equal what would be needed to bring about the entire universe. Our own creations are limited. But God being Spirit is beyond the natural and therefore is beyond the physical laws of the universe. Thus the entire creation is His.

One can worry that if God were transcendent, He would be completely beyond our perception of reality. Here, we need to draw a line between those who believe that reality is only physical matter and those who know that the human person is both physical matter and spiritual soul. We need to draw a line between those who only believe in the physical matter of the universe, and those who believe that God is Spirit. We know that through our own spirituality, our very soul, we can easily perceive the reality of God Who is Spirit. We know the reality of God through our Faith.

I am not convinced that there is a realm of pure spirit beyond our nature. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in God, or that I don’t believe that there is a part of reality that is non-physical(in the sense that it cannot be perceived with our current tools or our normal senses). If I ever come across and explanation of “beyond nature” that I understand and that feels real to me, I will change my opinion.

When we impact the world, we do it by using our hands, tools, words that are heard by others, weapons that cause visible damage, etc. When God impacts the world, there must be a part that interacts with the physical world as well. It doesn’t mean it is physical, but that it is material. If it wasn’t, I can’t see how it could possibly cause a physical reaction. It doesn’t mean that God couldn’t have created everything, just that saying He is “spirit” doesn’t really mean anything to me. If by “spirit” you mean a non-physical being who nonetheless has some material ties to this reality , enough to be able to act when He wants, then that makes more sense to me. I do believe in more than the physical matter of the universe, but I don’t believe that using words like “pure spirit” or “transcendant” add anything to my understanding of the world God made, or of God Himself. So I try to stick to wording and concepts that make things clearer to me.

 

[greylorn]

The concept of transcendance makes no sense to me. I cannot believe that something that can impact our physical reality, as God supposedly can, can be transcendant in the sense that He is completely beyond our perception of reality. If something can act on the physical, than it too has a physical component, in so far as it must have some mechanism through which it can actually cause a change. It may not be something we can see or measure at present, but it must exist nonetheless (IMO).

God willing something to happen means God is causing something physical to change, which means He is having some connection to the material at the time of the action. At least, that is the only thing that makes sense to my brain. I can’t wrap my head around the usual concept of transcendance, and it has never given me any sense of satisfation when I have tried. It has only made me feel more distant from my faith because it feels nonsensical and doesn’t seem to mesh with the way the universe seems to operate.

HelenaMT,
Well said, and from a different, more personal perspective than any of mine. I especially appreciate that quality and character of argument.

 

[greylorn]

Some explanations for quantum phenomena do invoke parallel universes, though I think they’re falling out of favour.

Mainly, though I was getting at the idea that things may exist in realms that we have no way of observing, and I wanted clarification on whether his “universe” was just what’s around us here or was the entirety of everything that exists in every realm, dimension, or what-have-you, even if it’s beyond where we could ever observe or travel to ourselves.

An excellent qualification for anyone proposing a History Channel speculative physics solution to any legitimate problem would be to have actually done the math involved. Even better, devise your own theory and first explain it (in another thread, please) with clarity.

Our knowledge of this universe is woefully imcomplete. We cannot adequately explain why gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. We do not understand the double-slit experiment. Big Bang theory requires fudge factors to get the math sort of working. Speculating about mystical, unobservable universes is premature.

Besides, it is commonly done by individuals who don’t know physics, perhaps as a way to appear knowledgeable.

So, let’s stick with known principles of physics and leave speculation to the History Channel pseudo-professors. Thanks, folks!

 

[wussup]

The concept of transcendence makes no sense to me. I cannot believe that something that can impact our physical reality, as God supposedly can, can be transcendent in the sense that He is completely beyond our perception of reality. If something can act on the physical, than it too has a physical component, in so far as it must have some mechanism through which it can actually cause a change. It may not be something we can see or measure at present, but it must exist nonetheless (IMO).

God willing something to happen means God is causing something physical to change, which means He is having some connection to the material at the time of the action. At least, that is the only thing that makes sense to my brain. I can’t wrap my head around the usual concept of transcendance, and it has never given me any sense of satisfation when I have tried. It has only made me feel more distant from my faith because it feels nonsensical and doesn’t seem to mesh with the way the universe seems to operate.

Exactly!!! With all due respect (or none as the case may be), I hope the moderators don’t close the thread as 1HOLYCATHOLIC (odd name, even Jesus questioned the affirmation he was ‘good’, let alone ‘holy’). I have been long absent from the forum, but see that this question has some potential.

Would it not be an odd God who did not have the property of connectedness with His Creation?

 

[Detales]

~~Wassup"Would it not be an odd God who did not have the property of connectedness with His Creation?"

I agree. I never bought the God and his Train Set theory of Creation. After I had several mystical experiences for which the Catholic Church had, despite due diligence on my part, no reasonable, cogent, or practical answer, I started looking elsewhere. I discovered a philosophy that explained everything not only to my sensibilities but to my intellect as well. Fundamentally, I could state it very baldly as God and the Universe are One. Jesus’ realization of this Fact was stated personally as “I and the Father are One,” as the component of experience we call “I” (not the personal “me”) is the Soul factor, or link to Divinity. This link can be experienced and magnified.

 

[greylorn]

Transcendent also means beyond the limits of human nature. Beyond our nature is pure Spirit.

One speaks about impacting physical reality. How much of physical reality have humans impacted? We have impacted gravity with our airplanes and damming rivers. We have impacted the fatality of certain diseases. But not one, nor a collection of humans, can equal what would be needed to bring about the entire universe. Our own creations are limited. But God being Spirit is beyond the natural and therefore is beyond the physical laws of the universe. Thus the entire creation is His.

One can worry that if God were transcendent, He would be completely beyond our perception of reality. Here, we need to draw a line between those who believe that reality is only physical matter and those who know that the human person is both physical matter and spiritual soul. We need to draw a line between those who only believe in the physical matter of the universe, and those who believe that God is Spirit. We know that through our own spirituality, our very soul, we can easily perceive the reality of God Who is Spirit. We know the reality of God through our Faith.

Granny, dear,
I would personally love to see you give up your transcendency fixation, at least for the purpose of this thread, which is about the properties of God. Transcendency is not a property. It is a word which stands for the absence of meaning, a word which tells the world that its user refuses to consider any concept which might integrate spirit with the physical.

I have tried to explain to you before that the words physical and material are not properly used synonymously. Matter is only one component of the physical universe, and a relatively minor component at that. You know this, so you have my permission to write in the context of your knowledge, instead of implying that I or anyone else is proposing that God is a material being. (And while we’re at it, let’s not make the new-agers’ mistake of calling God an “energy being,” which is almost as absurd.)

The only advantage to calling God a transcendent being is to be able to use a big word to say nothing relevant about interesting questions such as, how does God interact with the physical universe? Why did He create it? Etc.

The world of science has been moving away from any possible integration with theology for the last three centuries, leaving atheism to take over, because of closed-minded individuals who would rather cling to grade-school dogma than consider the potential of a single alternative idea. I have enough work to do without you hijacking my thread and trying to drag it back to the dark ages.

You will notice that I do not post to sections and threads which are devoted to rehashing principles of the Catholic faith. I avoid these threads out of respect for those who want to have a safe space to discuss the ideas they’ve chosen to believe. Perhaps you, and several other dogmatic Catholics would offer those who want to consider alternative ideas about our acknowledged Creator the same courtesy.

Let’s make this a no dogma zone.

Kindly take this reply as intended, with appreciation for your faith (once my own) and a personal appreciation of you, but with a need to set some boundaries. Thank you!

 

[1holycatholic]

~~Wassup"Would it not be an odd God who did not have the property of connectedness with His Creation?"

I agree. I never bought the God and his Train Set theory of Creation. After I had several mystical experiences for which the Catholic Church had, despite due diligence on my part, no reasonable, cogent, or practical answer, I started looking elsewhere. I discovered a philosophy that explained everything not only to my sensibilities but to my intellect as well. Fundamentally, I could state it very baldly as God and the Universe are One. Jesus’ realization of this Fact was stated personally as “I and the Father are One,” as the component of experience we call “I” (not the personal “me”) is the Soul factor, or link to Divinity. This link can be experienced and magnified.

God is necessarily uncreated and atemporal. The universe is created and exists atemporally. In fact the existence of the universe is radically contingent.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Granny, dear,
I would personally love to see you give up your transcendency fixation, at least for the purpose of this thread, which is about the properties of God. Transcendency is not a property. It is a word which stands for the absence of meaning, a word which tells the world that its user refuses to consider any concept which might integrate spirit with the physical.

I have tried to explain to you before that the words physical and material are not properly used synonymously. Matter is only one component of the physical universe, and a relatively minor component at that. You know this, so you have my permission to write in the context of your knowledge, instead of implying that I or anyone else is proposing that God is a material being. (And while we’re at it, let’s not make the new-agers’ mistake of calling God an “energy being,” which is almost as absurd.)

The only advantage to calling God a transcendent being is to be able to use a big word to say nothing relevant about interesting questions such as, how does God interact with the physical universe? Why did He create it? Etc.

transcedence is an essential quality of the necessary being, upon which all contingent beings rely for their existence. it seems as thhough it is vey important for you to integrate scientific and metaphysical notions, how does G-d interact with the universe? who knows? why is it even important? out of curiosity is it in reference to the ICR or some other problem with the metaphysical explanations?