Theological question from a 6 yr old

[norain]

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.

I’ve reread Aquinas, and partly agree with him. Even formulated my own logical proofs. I now conclude:

All miracles need not violate physical laws or logic.

In other words, miracles are indeed possible. Unlikely in many instances, but they cannot be determined false to a certainty due to axiomatic constraints.

 

[norain]

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!

jochoa,

Life creation is a complicated process and proceeds necessarily forward from fertilization, implantation, then mitosis and embryogenesis.

Death necessarily proceeds forward as well, with breakdown of cell membranes, release of enzymes, leading to decay. Both processes never go in reverse.

Resurrection from a Biblical perspective seems to indicate the occurrence of death in reverse, creating life in the process.

Something like imagining a ball running up an incline. Except in the ball, all you really need is energy. In this case, you’ll need more than energy.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[greylorn]

G

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?

Given the inevitable conclusion that a Creator with infinite intelligence (a property that follows from omniscience) is infinitely more intelligent than humans, what possible benefit could He have by befriending us? You might want to try associating with cretins and morons (unless you have a cat or dog and actually talk to it) and see how fulfilling you find that process.

I suspect that the Resurrection of the dead concept was an early Christian attempt to co-opt elements of the Eastern religions which believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation into various bodies and circumstances is actually quite a reasonable concept in the context of Beon Theory, which makes a different quality of sense than the Eastern religions.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa,

Life creation is a complicated process and proceeds necessarily forward from fertilization, implantation, then mitosis and embryogenesis.

Death necessarily proceeds forward as well, with breakdown of cell membranes, release of enzymes, leading to decay. Both processes never go in reverse.

Resurrection from a Biblical perspective seems to indicate the occurrence of death in reverse, creating life in the process.

Something like imagining a ball running up an incline. Except in the ball, all you really need is energy. In this case, you’ll need more than energy.

Just my 2 cents.

Thank you very much for sharing further understandings! I apologize for not being able to clearly state what description/clarification of the reversal of death you interpret from the Bible I am searching for. Please consider this:
Do you interpret the Bible to declare that there will be reintegration by gathering the released enzymes to reform cell membranes?

Perhaps I am requesting which verses do you interpret as revealing that Resurrection is the reversal of the biological process of dying?

Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and most especially patience with me.

 

[greylorn]

I don’t see anybody who said he was immediately accepted. What was said is that he was immediately understood, and by this we meant that the terminology he used was the same terminology used by the other scholastics at the time.

I consider myself corrected. I apologize for misrepresenting you. And I hate it when people do that kind of thing.

 

[norain]

Perhaps I am requesting which verses do you interpret as revealing that Resurrection is the reversal of the biological process of dying?

Sorry that I neglect to answer your question. To finally do so, the answer is there are no such verses! I presumed too much.

I indeed do not recall any Biblical verse saying that resurrection is the process of dying reversed.

Please read my comment above. And based on that, resurrection might be possible, due to the lack of knowledge of all prerequisite axioms to arrive at a proof of truth/falsity.

 

[greylorn]

I definitely agree with your line of thinking. What are your thoughts on the following concepts:
To be more specific, I would say God’s nature is unchangeable, where God’s nature is always freely being and spreading the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace in all relationships, including within the self.
Given this unchangeable being, God is the pinnacle of Creativity!

Sorry, but you cannot package creativity and unchangeability within the same entity. Every new thought changes the entity or mechanism that creates it.

While I believe that we live in a created universe, I do not find that the classical Christian God-concept adequately defines the Creator. It was designed to appeal to human emotional needs, to sell pew seats, but is, in my opinion, illogical and inconsistent with well-determined principles of physics.

How could the Creator have created a physics that is incompatible with his nature? Or put another way, why would a fine artist like Rembrandt paint in the style of a screwball like Picasso? .

greylorn:

Quote:
You still have the same problem. If God cannot exist in space-time, he cannot affect events in space-time.

What are your thoughts on this concept:
We do not exist in 2 dimensions, but we can affect events in 2 dimensions because we exist outside and with 2 dimensions.

Thanks for the great food for thought!

We seem to be sharing a conceptual dinner at the same restaurant, partaking of different entrees but at least splitting an appetizer.

I’ve been exchanging ideas about space, manifolds, and time with a mathematician who has studied my book. Together we are trying to resolve some hairy issues, and your excellent question fits right in. I’ll answer off the top of my head and pass this conversation along to him, because it brings up challenging thoughts.

We exist in 3 dimensional space, and perhaps the soul exists in another shared dimension. But we cannot operate at all in spaces with fewer than 3 dimensions. We can conceptually visualize and mathematically describe 1 or 2 dimensional manifolds (mathematically smooth sub-spaces) that exist within our space, but we cannot enter them or operate within them.

For example, we can visualize a 2-dimensional sheet of paper and imagine ourselves making a 1-dimensional dot on that sheet, but in the real world, only three dimensions exist.

I can pull out my handy micrometer and measure the thickness of that 8 x 11" sheet, and with an electron microscope can measure the diameter and thickness of the tiniest dot.

Put simply, manifolds or spaces smaller than 3 dimensions do not and cannot exist, except as figments of the mathematical mind.

The more interesting question is, how might our 3D space relate to the higher space, or spaces that might contain beon/soul and God? I do not have an answer to that, but hey, it is always helpful to begin with a question.

Again, thank you for your thought provoking query.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I consider myself corrected. I apologize for misrepresenting you. And I hate it when people do that kind of thing.

Very kind of you, greylorn. I appreciate it.

 

[jochoa]

G

Given the inevitable conclusion that a Creator with infinite intelligence (a property that follows from omniscience) is infinitely more intelligent than humans, what possible benefit could He have by befriending us?

Thank you very much for extended discussion! Please consider the following concepts:
Regarding infinite intelligence
If given the eternal after-life for humans is True, then humans that live forever also have infinite intelligence because in every moment of living our knowledge database is growing.
Regarding a property that flows from omniscience
Wisdom is one with omniscience, and Wisdom knows that if a life knows everything before it happens, then the greatest level of happiness to experience is perfect happiness.
Wisdom knows that the pinnacle of living is experiencing limitless happiness without losing peace. The means to achieve this experience is through True Friendships.
For the Creator to experience true friendship, in order to experience a limitless happiness without losing peace, He has to sacrifice knowing everything. This is why God is the only-begotten Son, which can be known because He lays down His Life for friends.
Therefore the benefit He can have is the experience of limitless happiness, which is distinct from a perfect happiness.

I suspect that the Resurrection of the dead concept was an early Christian attempt to co-opt elements of the Eastern religions which believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation into various bodies and circumstances is actually quite a reasonable concept in the context of Beon Theory, which makes a different quality of sense than the Eastern religions.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I, myself, have grown through perceiving the reincarnation into various bodies and circumstances as the fullness of Truth, especially considering there is definite alignment between Resurrection and Reincarnation. The main questions for me which revealed limitations in this concept were:
Is there ever an end to the reincarnation process? From my understandings of the concept, there is not an end. It is claiming to be the cycle of life. Given this, I do not want to be in an endless cycle of reincarnation in which I constantly forget who I am. This led me to see greater light in accomplishing a pinnacle goal which leads to the Fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven (where the physically resurrected body of Jesus is).
What would be the purpose of the Creator creating life in an endless reincarnation for His Creations? I personally could not reasonably resolve this.
Since some of the religions which believe in reincarnation, either do not believe in Creation by the Creator or do not believe the Creator plays an active role in Creation, I found the former to be impossible and the latter to yield a purposeless Creator. Meaning: If there is not initially a living Creator who can purpose an endless reincarnation before the beginning of Creation, where the living came from random non-living, then it is impossible for there to be an after-life/reincarnation. AND…if the Creator does not play an active role in His Creation and makes it impossible for His Creations to know He exists, know what He wants from His Creations, and know why He wants it, then the Creator is essentially purposeless to the Creations because no matter how hard a Creation tries to know and understand God, the Creation can never know and understand. Therefore, a Creator that creates without leading/guiding His Creations to greater living is purposeless.

Thank you very much for further discussion! I look forward to more!

 

[jochoa]

Sorry, but you cannot package creativity and unchangeability within the same entity. Every new thought changes the entity or mechanism that creates it.

While I believe that we live in a created universe, I do not find that the classical Christian God-concept adequately defines the Creator. It was designed to appeal to human emotional needs, to sell pew seats, but is, in my opinion, illogical and inconsistent with well-determined principles of physics.

How could the Creator have created a physics that is incompatible with his nature? Or put another way, why would a fine artist like Rembrandt paint in the style of a screwball like Picasso?

Thank you very much for extended discussion, my great friend! I am having a blast pondering the topics!

Regarding creativity and unchangeability
I agree with your line of thinking in a distinct manner. In attempts to share how I agree with you, please consider the following concept:
Although God acts, thinks, creates, and therefore, “changes,” every act, thought, creation, and change of God is of the same exact nature: "Always freely being and spreading the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated… (as defined in this post). Since every “change” of God is of the exact same nature/being, the nature/being of God never changes. Therefore, God never changes, and He is “always freely being and…”

Regarding adequately defining God
From my analysis, I definitely agree with you in a distinct manner.
Although Catholicism has defined theology and practice spot on, it only needs to know the Purpose and the beginning of physical existence to be complete. For once the Purpose and Physical Beginning have been revealed, all Catholic Teachings are justified as the Fullness of Truth.
Therefore, Catholicism is the Fullness of Truth, yet it still has Mysteries!

We seem to be sharing a conceptual dinner at the same restaurant, partaking of different entrees but at least splitting an appetizer.

This is brilliant, my friend! Thanks for the line!

I’ve been exchanging ideas about space, manifolds, and time with a mathematician who has studied my book. Together we are trying to resolve some hairy issues, and your excellent question fits right in. I’ll answer off the top of my head and pass this conversation along to him, because it brings up challenging thoughts.

We exist in 3 dimensional space, and perhaps the soul exists in another shared dimension. But we cannot operate at all in spaces with fewer than 3 dimensions. We can conceptually visualize and mathematically describe 1 or 2 dimensional manifolds (mathematically smooth sub-spaces) that exist within our space, but we cannot enter them or operate within them.

For example, we can visualize a 2-dimensional sheet of paper and imagine ourselves making a 1-dimensional dot on that sheet, but in the real world, only three dimensions exist.

I can pull out my handy micrometer and measure the thickness of that 8 x 11" sheet, and with an electron microscope can measure the diameter and thickness of the tiniest dot.

Put simply, manifolds or spaces smaller than 3 dimensions do not and cannot exist, except as figments of the mathematical mind.

These are some brilliant thoughts! I constantly strive to find a better means to explain the concepts of soul, spirit, and body, and these explanations get me one step closer. Please consider the following concepts:

Regarding conceptual visualization becoming reality, please consider a few questions:
If we can think in our mind, the exact way the physical reality will play out, are the thoughts more than just a figment of imagination, given the thoughts actually came to physically happen?
What if we think of the exact way the physical reality played out, are the thoughts more than just a figment of imagination, given the thoughts actually physically happened?
What if while we think in our mind, we are able to freely choose acts in our mind regarding a specific event (ex. drawing a dot on paper in certain way), then when we physically create the dot, we act exactly according to how we acted in our thought: Were we acting within 3 dimensions in our thought, given there are spatial relations and sequence of events (timeliness) within our thoughts?

The more interesting question is, how might our 3D space relate to the higher space, or spaces that might contain beon/soul and God? I do not have an answer to that, but hey, it is always helpful to begin with a question.

Definitely excellent question! Please consider these concepts:
In reference to the scenario of thoughtfully drawing a dot on a piece of paper, followed by physically drawing a dot on a piece of paper in the same manner of the thoughtful drawing:
Although the thoughtful drawing is dimensionless because it only exists in thought, it is in spatial and timely oneness with the 3 dimensions of the physically drawing.

Therefore, I propose that our soul is the observance of the free-willed choices we make in the Mind of God: as the first physical living being to exist (The Father). This would be in alignment with the concept of the soul existing without dimension, but existing in oneness with the 3 dimensions we physically experience.
I propose that our body is the physical occurrence of our soul.
I propose that our spirit is what our soul freely chose to do.
Essentially, the spirit is the memory of a person acting, the soul is the “will do” acts of a person, the body is the “doing” acts of a person.

Again, thank you for your thought provoking query.

Thank you! This has been brilliant and fun conversation!

 

[greylorn]

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:

So far, I do not know what you mean by “your theory,” and this post does not describe it. My theory is partially explained on CAF and detailed in my book. So far you are talking through your hat.

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.

I have no clue as to what you mean by “absolution of a concept.” You might want to pick up a dictionary, not a catechism, and review both of those words.

Your theory seems to be no more than a reiteration of dogma. Been there. Beon theory does not suppose that God existed forever as a conscious thinking entity. That would be illogical.

My theory, “beon theory” uses concepts only insofar as they apply to real things or entities. The notion that God is only a “concept” is true for atheists, but NOT for me. Atheists treat God as a conceptual figment of human imagination; I treat God as a real entity, incorrectly defined by religious theorists.

Why is a religionist like yourself siding with an atheistic concept?

My concept of the Creator is different from those of all other theological systems, but it remains the concept of a REAL entity, a real creator.

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.

Observation is not thought. Cockroaches can observe just fine.

I agree that the fundamental nature of God does not change. He is what he is. The same is true for us, at least at the level of beon/soul. I have no reason to believe that so long as you and exist, even post-bodily-death, we will become different in kind.

But Christ’s teachings are all about becoming different within the context of ourselves, opening our minds and hearts, transcending the beliefs of the society in which we were raised, going beyond Pharisee or Sadducee beliefs.

Would you say “extraordinarily powerful” is also unnecessarily pretentious?

I would never make that especially absurd and disconnected statement. That does not mean that I might not make other such statements.

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.”

That’s your perspective, not mine. And is it truly “yours?” Did you derive it on your own, or is this something that you were taught?

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”?

You do not understand the concept of manifold. It took me a bit of work and studies to get there, and I’m not even certain that I’m “there.” It is not a “scientific” concept. It is a purely mathematical concept. Nothing that can be truly called a “manifold” has ever been found within the physical universe. It is a strictly theoretical idea.

Your computer display is 3D, and only exists in the same 3D space in which you exist. It is no different than an ordinary photograph, which you interpret as if it was a 2D manifold. In fact, every component of the apparently 2D image is composed of 3D components (atoms, electrons, molecules) that your eyes cannot resolve. Their 2D interpretation results from a limitation in your (and most everyone’s) perceptual skills.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration! I look forward to further discussion!

Be mindful of what you look forward to.

 

[greylorn]

I’ve reread Aquinas, and partly agree with him. Even formulated my own logical proofs. I now conclude:

All miracles need not violate physical laws or logic.

In other words, miracles are indeed possible. Unlikely in many instances, but they cannot be determined false to a certainty due to axiomatic constraints.

Most “miracles” are simply ordinary physical events that cannot be explained by their observers. (e.g: high tech explorers flicking a cheap cigarette lighter to impress the members of isolated societies who generally rub sticks to make a fire.)

There is only one genuine miracle, only one thing that cannot be explained, not even by God. It is, that anything exists.

This miracle cannot confound physical law. It contains the principles of physics that define the rules that we call “law.”
There are only three such principles, and they are fairly well expressed in the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[greylorn]

Thank you very much for extended discussion, my great friend! I am having a blast pondering the topics!

Regarding creativity and unchangeability
I agree with your line of thinking in a distinct manner. In attempts to share how I agree with you, please consider the following concept:
Although God acts, thinks, creates, and therefore, “changes,” every act, thought, creation, and change of God is of the same exact nature: "Always freely being and spreading the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated… (as defined in this post). Since every “change” of God is of the exact same nature/being, the nature/being of God never changes. Therefore, God never changes, and He is “always freely being and…”

Regarding adequately defining God
From my analysis, I definitely agree with you in a distinct manner.
Although Catholicism has defined theology and practice spot on, it only needs to know the Purpose and the beginning of physical existence to be complete. For once the Purpose and Physical Beginning have been revealed, all Catholic Teachings are justified as the Fullness of Truth.
Therefore, Catholicism is the Fullness of Truth, yet it still has Mysteries!

This is brilliant, my friend! Thanks for the line!

These are some brilliant thoughts! I constantly strive to find a better means to explain the concepts of soul, spirit, and body, and these explanations get me one step closer. Please consider the following concepts:

Regarding conceptual visualization becoming reality, please consider a few questions:
If we can think in our mind, the exact way the physical reality will play out, are the thoughts more than just a figment of imagination, given the thoughts actually came to physically happen?
What if we think of the exact way the physical reality played out, are the thoughts more than just a figment of imagination, given the thoughts actually physically happened?
What if while we think in our mind, we are able to freely choose acts in our mind regarding a specific event (ex. drawing a dot on paper in certain way), then when we physically create the dot, we act exactly according to how we acted in our thought: Were we acting within 3 dimensions in our thought, given there are spatial relations and sequence of events (timeliness) within our thoughts?

Definitely excellent question! Please consider these concepts:
In reference to the scenario of thoughtfully drawing a dot on a piece of paper, followed by physically drawing a dot on a piece of paper in the same manner of the thoughtful drawing:
Although the thoughtful drawing is dimensionless because it only exists in thought, it is in spatial and timely oneness with the 3 dimensions of the physically drawing.

Therefore, I propose that our soul is the observance of the free-willed choices we make in the Mind of God: as the first physical living being to exist (The Father). This would be in alignment with the concept of the soul existing without dimension, but existing in oneness with the 3 dimensions we physically experience.
I propose that our body is the physical occurrence of our soul.
I propose that our spirit is what our soul freely chose to do.
Essentially, the spirit is the memory of a person acting, the soul is the “will do” acts of a person, the body is the “doing” acts of a person.

Thank you! This has been brilliant and fun conversation!

You might want to stop using the word “brilliant” in conversations with respect to me. Doing so will annoy other CAF participants.

Your questions are becoming more interesting, and also more complex. I do not have the time to address them in detail. I also dislike the chore of repeating what I have already said. Before further conversations here on CAF, which I welcome, you might consider reading (even better-- studying) the material that I have formally written and published.