M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
That’s exactly what I was thinking.I thought that that would go without saying but you’re right, I wouldn’t want my answer to bite me back.
- Status
N
norain
Guest
Okay, let’s try to keep it simple. It’s a good and important question, I think. Did Aquinas go with that, the separation of physical laws and logic?
Well, here’s a starting point: Are physical laws absolute in their truth value? Or can they be possibly false sometimes, allowing God to circumvent them logically?
I’m not even sure we can set that as an axiom.
N
norain
Guest
Can God can suspend the laws of nature without defying logic?
I was convinced the answer is false. It seems to me a law of nature is necessarily true in all instances, and is necessarily consistent with every other law of nature.
So if God violates one law, then it changes its truth value to possibly both true and false, then all other laws fall apart along with it.
Seems to me the laws and logic are tightly bound, and my answer is no.
I’ll keep thinking about this. It’s a curious proposition.
I was convinced the answer is false. It seems to me a law of nature is necessarily true in all instances, and is necessarily consistent with every other law of nature.
So if God violates one law, then it changes its truth value to possibly both true and false, then all other laws fall apart along with it.
Seems to me the laws and logic are tightly bound, and my answer is no.
I’ll keep thinking about this. It’s a curious proposition.
J
jochoa
Guest
Yes. Please consider the following ideas:
The Logical reasoning for the Resurrection of All the Dead
In the Creation of an ever-lasting society of a limitless number of True Friends, in which the Creator gets to participate as a friend, and the Creator initially exists in absolute solitude: It is necessary to allow the Purposeful Creations the opportunity to freely become as Truly Loving as the Creator. Since the Purposeful Creations must freely become as Truly Loving…, the Creator must devise a Creation which grants the Purposeful Creations freedom from the fact of being the Created. This Creation will result in a scenario in which the earlier created do not have an equal opportunity to becoming as Truly Loving as the Creator. Therefore, it is logically reasonable that an All-Just and Fair Creator would grant the earlier created lives an equal opportunity to becoming Truly Loving. This is achievable through the Resurrection of all the Dead!
Thoughts?
N
norain
Guest
jochoa,
I think what you wrote is a rationale for the resurrection. I suppose you can answer it that way. What I’m interested to know is that given the assumption that resurrection violates physical law, whether it can be argued to be logical nonetheless.
I think not, since logic and physical law are tightly bound.
I think what you wrote is a rationale for the resurrection. I suppose you can answer it that way. What I’m interested to know is that given the assumption that resurrection violates physical law, whether it can be argued to be logical nonetheless.
I think not, since logic and physical law are tightly bound.
Q
Qwestions
Guest
“I am the Lord, thy God.” For God to have all His characteristics, it would not be possible for Him to create another being with the same …credentials. He could create another being with similar characteristics, but that being could not equal Him. There can only be one God, as He has ordained.
“Absolute power corrupts, absolutely,”—or something like that (it’s the wee hours!). Michael and Lucifer were about as high as God is likely to create, and we know what happened there!
I’d ask my son to expound on his thoughts, then try to answer using what I know from the catechisms. I might have to say, in response to some of his thoughts, “Hmmmm. That’s a VERY good question, Johnny. You know what? We should ask Father Ward!” Then, on Sunday . . .
“Absolute power corrupts, absolutely,”—or something like that (it’s the wee hours!). Michael and Lucifer were about as high as God is likely to create, and we know what happened there!
I’d ask my son to expound on his thoughts, then try to answer using what I know from the catechisms. I might have to say, in response to some of his thoughts, “Hmmmm. That’s a VERY good question, Johnny. You know what? We should ask Father Ward!” Then, on Sunday . . .
G
greylorn
Guest
You are welcome, and thanks for the nod of agreement. I wish that I could accept it, but you and I do not agree, yet.
I proposed that an unchangeable God cannot think, but I believe in a God who can and does. My entire theory depends upon the concept that the true beginning gave birth to the extraordinarily powerful entity who we now recognize as “God,” as well as to ourselves. at the level of “soul.”
IMO the term “pinnacle of creativity” is unnecessarily pretentious. I’d simply say, God is the creator of the universe in which we exist.
I hope you recognize that creativity requires conscious, intelligent thought. Creativity is about coming up with new ideas to bring something into existence which had not previously been in existence. Creativity is not a mere manifestation of existing knowledge-- it is about creating knowledge that had not previously existed.
The dimension issue is a complex one, and at this point it seems best to offer a few simple concepts. We (our universe) exist in at least 3 spacial dimensions— 4 if time is included. (I do not include it in my theories.)
We can treat our three or four dimensions as a complete space, but it is more logical to treat our space in terms of what mathematicians would call a manifold.
Yes, that notion troubled me when I first had my nose thrust into it. A manifold is a “space” that is actually a subset of a larger space. I can explain more if needed, and there are probably some wikipedia articles discussing this.
The notion that our space is a manifold existing within a larger space is logically essential to religious beliefs, such as the notion of a soul. I will explain further if there is any interest.
There is merit to your notion about the dimensions in which we exist (3 however, not 2) and the relationship that God and “soul” might have to these dimensions. The manifold concept leads to the hypothesis that the entities we regard as “spiritual” exist in another space with at least one more dimension than ours.
J
jochoa
Guest
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and redirection! Here are a couple of concepts to consider:
God is most definitely logical.
And since logic and physical law are tightly bound, instead of assuming that resurrection violates physical law, assume resurrection is alignment with physical law. Then recognize it is your challenge to resolve how can resurrection be in alignment with physical law. Please consider my personal concepts of the two:
Biology has demonstrated that a human life exists the instance a sperm cell and egg cell become united into a single embryonic cell. This single cell is the entire body of the human at this point. Then this cell replicates time and time again throughout the course of the human life. Since our entire body was once comprised of a single embryonic cell. God only has to resurrect one cell of our entire being, and He has resurrected our entire body.
And to provide further support for this line of thinking is the alignment with some Scripture, Theology, and the Mass.
Jesus was placed into the Womb of Mary. Therefore, He was an “embryo” in terms of physical body at some point in time.
At Mass, the priest raises the unleavened bread which has the exact image of a circle. And to this, Jesus states, “This is my Body.” Therefore, His Body has the exact image of a circle.
Both male and female have this same exact image of a circular body when we first begin human living.
Both male and female are created in the Image of God.
This also falls in perfect alignment with the means for Jesus to be the Only Begotten Son, however this is an extension which is harder to explain.
Please know, the better question to answer regarding resurrection, is not “How can God not violate physical laws in resurrecting the dead”, but rather it is “Why would God resurrect the dead in a manner that is not provable to humans?” The answer is to not sacrifice the purpose for Creation!
N
norain
Guest
N
norain
Guest
Thanks. I partially agree. In the most succinct sense, if life can indeed be created, then life can possibly be restored in the same mechanism. However, when one speaks of resurrection, it is generally implied in a manner distinct from the creation of life. Biology in the creation of life follows distinct steps, except no one really knows when ensoulment occurs. Heck, there is no direct proof for souls at all, or what consciousness really is. I have my own theories, but that is a topic separate from this thread.
The mystery of resurrection is not the idea itself, but the method in which it is carried out biblically, which is that the process of death itself reversed, a process that naturally proceeds only in one direction, towards entropy, the reversal of which is not only very complex but impossible in the natural sense.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Tightly, but not exclusively. I can conceive of a universe that, for example, has nothing anchoring us to the Earth-say, a universe where gravity does not work on humans.
I don’t know how it might work but since it can be conceptualized I don’t see how it can be LOGICALLY impossible.
N
norain
Guest
I’ve grappled with this question myself, and am more on the side of jochoa on this. I would recommend reading up on Platonism as reference.
Platonism postulates that concepts exist in a realm outside of reality, the “universals” as they are called. A perfect circle , or “a circle” is one, which manifests itself in round, flat objects in reality.
I’d like to think as God as the sum of all possible knowledge, physical laws, the past, present and the future and how they exist in a continuum. For God to “think” up new ideas is to go against this postulate that ideas are only to be discovered, not created. This is the essence of platonism, an important concept in the philosophy of mathematics.
This sum of all knowledge is God. To think that there is knowledge to be created outside of it is to imagine an imperfect God, a God who has to learn new things.
Thinking, learning, making mistakes, these are all attributes for mortal, limited sentients like us. To be perfect is to be God himself, or to be one with him. There can only be one.
N
norain
Guest
Kindness,
Sometimes presenting things mathematically exposes the answer more clearly. This can be done in terms of mathematical sets.
If we assume set E to consist of every entity there is, G being God, the greatest thing existing in E with regard to all possible properties, we can show that there can only be one such entity G.
Then for purposes of discussion, let’s postulate another entity G’ which is God-like in every way. We quickly discover that every property of G’ is also in G, and we can assume them to be the same entity.
An objection might be raised that there can be two greatest things existing, such that a race can have two victors. A reply can be made that the two victors are only equivalent in the sense that they both won. They have distinct other features. One for example, may be married to a woman named Lisa and the other likes to play bridge.
G and G’ are exact in every respect, so they point to the same entity. Even if there’s two of them, the fact that they are exactly the same tells us that they will behave the same, and might as well be considered one, manifesting into two, or however many you like.
N
norain
Guest
Be careful not to belittle gravity, Mark. I’m no physicist but I just read a book on relativity. As long as humans have mass, and the speed of light is constant, and spacetime is spacetime, gravity will pull us down. The consistency of the theory is amazing.
If one can postulate such a universe where gravity can be violated, I’ll just have to wish you good luck with the math on that. I am confident it simply won’t work, or the universe will be very different. For instance, maybe the speed of light may be variable. Dunno.
B
BrotherFernando
Guest
I agree. he would contradict himself, since he said there is no other God but me.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
That’s not what I mean by conceivable. By conceivable, I mean we can imagine a world where humans are actually not anchored to the ground while everything else is.
N
norain
Guest
I had to look this up on Aquinas’ works. You’re partly correct, per Aquinas. Miracles do not violate logic, but they do not necessarily violate the laws of nature either. Logic and the laws of nature are tightly bound, and that I’m sure of.
I had been thinking this up a lot recently, so I just had to check. Until you formulated your comment, I probably wouldn’t have. I had convinced myself that there was something wrong with Aquinas’ formulation, but now I get it, I think.
This is very important to me. Thanks.
Read further here:
josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles3b.htm#101
Aquinas, St. Thomas. Contra Gentiles, lib. III cap. 101.
J
jochoa
Guest
Thank you very much for extended discussion, my friend! I really enjoy pondering your ideas! Please consider my understanding of my “theory’s” alignment with your theory:
When you declare, "true beginning gave birth to the extraordinarily powerful entity who we now recognize as “God,” I would agree in that I recognize this as distinctly the physical beginning of God. Please know, my “theory” also recognizes that God exists before everything and anything, without consideration of physical/material entities, because God exists as a concept. And concepts are not subject to time, and the absolution of a concept can only be discovered, because the absolution of a concept exists prior to any event, whether physical or thoughtful.
Also, please consider one question:
Would you equate the observance of events as an act of thought? If so, then I agree with you in that God thinks.
Please know that I know God’s Nature does not change, but God has a will that acts, therefore it can be recognized that He changes.
Would you say “extraordinarily powerful” is also unnecessarily pretentious? From my perspective, if God did not create perfection, then He is not “extraordinarily” powerful. On that note, I recognize that God created perfection, therefore God is “extraordinarily” powerful, as well as the “pinnacle of creativity.”
Definitely!
Thank you very much for gracefully sharing these scientific understandings. I have never heard of manifold, but from your explanations, I believe I have a very clear understanding, of which my “theory” is in alignment with this factor. Please consider a couple of questions regarding dimensions:
What dimensions does the activity in the computer display exist in?
To see if I understand “manifold” correctly, would the computer display be a subset manifold of the observable universal subset manifold of “All Space”?
Thank you very much for your time and consideration! I look forward to further discussion!
J
jochoa
Guest
Thank you for responding.
If possible, would you please share more of your understandings regarding these concepts? I am not sure what you are saying.
Please consider:
Will you please explain in other words your understanding of the method as proposed by the bible?
Thank you very much for your time and consideration!
G
greylorn
Guest
Why not get some outside ideas on this interesting topic, by way of feeding your thoughts? For example,God must be able to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but not the First or Third.
- Status