What God is and how He relates

[JDaniel]

Hi jd!

Thanks for your analysis. It’s enlightening and helpful.

You are very welcome. I love philosophy, and, I love my God. So, for me, this is the best of all possible worlds!

I am curious as to why, as you stated, “It is the nature of God to exist as more than one person. . . as it is the nature of natural creatures to exist as ensouled matter.” In discussing this issue on other boards, the idea of the “nature of a thing” rings hollow. (Modernity). I’m trying to do more reading on this subject, as well as philosophy in general. St. Thomas Aquinas for dummies!!!

It stands to reason that those who wish to deny the arguments of another, will start out by asserting everything they can think of to discredit the other’s argument. The easiest way to rebut a categorical assertion, though, is with an equally aggressive categorical denial. If I left the argument there, you would have, unfortunately, discovered nothing except that neither of the debaters was particularly helpful to you.

My question to you is, how can we not know the nature of things? And, what is more, why would we not strive in earnest to know the natures of things? Whenever we study an object, what are we looking for? Every single time we encounter a new object we study it in order to derive that which we can, in the not too distant future, predicate about it. For objects in general, knowledge of the nature of a thing can turn out to be very practical. For example, living in a tropical climate, I often come into contact with various spiders. I know from a quick glance at certain spiders, that it is in the nature of them to be aggressive and to inflict a painful bite. So, I make an informed decision to avoid them.

What I know about a particular species of spider might start out with the first bite, but, if I want to know more, I put it under a microscope, so to speak. Upon a larger inspection, including a sampling of spiders from that species and others, I can discover general and universal knowledge about spiders as a whole, from particular and singular spiders. Now, I have the ability to predicate about that object, and that predicate relates to all, or most, of the objects of that class, or species.

What is a human being? We define a human being as a “rational animal”. How can we define him that way? We define him that way because we have investigated him sufficiently to know what his primary attributes are - his nature. So, a man’s nature is that he is a rational animal. He is an animal, but, he is also more than an animal. He is a rational being, but he is more than a rational being. He is a unique combination of both rational and animal. But, we can only sense the materiality of one part of his nature: the animal part. The rational part, we only know from telltale signs from effects left behind by that part of his nature.

The same with God. It is in the nature of God to be all of His attributes to their highest perfection. For example, He is existence to perfection and He is life to perfection. Just these two attributes by themselves clearly point out that He is fecund to perfection. Thus, He creates.

Ask yourself this question: what is it that a perfect, omniscient God would think about? Aristotle said that such a God would only ponder Himself. Anything else would bring Him down. In fact, he defined God as the “Thought of Thought” - infinite intelligence wrapped in endless self-contemplation. Since Christ arrived, and, with the help of prophets, we know that was not quite right. We now regard him as a personal God; He whose nature it is to care about each of us. Why, because they told us He would AND He told us he would. Remember that God does not have to conform to our predilection for, and limitation of, thinking of objects in their singularity only. That we can know the universality of objects gives us another peek at the mystery of triunity.

How do we know this? Obviously we can’t demonstrate it - either in a science lab or as a syllogism. We know it from that which we were not taught. We know it from the nature of our spiritual side; our rational side; our soul side.

My understanding is that everything had to have been caused since we can see their effects. (Someone posited that that premise is false since “many quantum level events are uncaused.” An example is radioactive decay. It was stated that “There is no cause of a single decay in a single atom; it is a purely probabilistic event.”) From the argument of causality, it follows that the universe, too, had to have a cause. I was informed that I had to establish that the universe is a single “event,” and that there was a single cause rather than multiple causes. Also, that the First Cause has a personality which deserves the designation of “God.” (Is it a “Supreme Being”?)

Well, let’s explore that person’s contention(s). In the past, I have been hit with the argument of virtual particles. I reminded my opponent that the term for the exigency was, “VIRTUAL particles”. No one has ever seen a virtual particle. So, we do not know the manner of its being, except that they seem to exhibit traits that appear to be particulate, and then, an umpteenth nanosecond later, they exhibit nothing, not even “being”. It is amazing that some people are want to say so much about something that is so unapparent, to our eyes, that it is universally called “virtual”. (Virtual does not mean real.)

Now, to radioactive decay: the properties of a decaying radioactive isotope are its matter and the matter’s instability. Science my have to look some more to discover the cause(s) of an atom’s decay. Take water, for instance. If we bring the temperature of the water up to just below full boiling point, the instability caused by the heat will send random molecules of water into the air as steam. Remedial science found the answer to that. It may take more to find the answer to the isotope question, or, it may be as simple as stated for boiling water.

The universe was caused. Because of the logistical impossibility of early mankind to discover this, the early scientists and philosophers were led to believe that it was infinite. I think science has pretty much overcome the logistics of witnessing the color spectrum from areas of the universe as they travel farther from the initial expansion. As for having to establish that “the universe is a single event,” I would want to know why such a restriction was put on the origin of it. My guess is that the reason is spurious. Not to mention that it appears that the prevailing consensus is that it was one event. But, my point is that I am not sure why it matters.

jd

 

[rookieonedge]

You are very welcome. I love philosophy, and, I love my God. So, for me, this is the best of all possible worlds!

It stands to reason that those who wish to deny the arguments of another, will start out by asserting everything they can think of to discredit the other’s argument. The easiest way to rebut a categorical assertion, though, is with an equally aggressive categorical denial. If I left the argument there, you would have, unfortunately, discovered nothing except that neither of the debaters was particularly helpful to you.

Well, let’s explore that person’s contention(s). In the past, I have been hit with the argument of virtual particles. I reminded my opponent that the term for the exigency was, “VIRTUAL particles”. No one has ever seen a virtual particle. So, we do not know the manner of its being, except that they seem to exhibit traits that appear to be particulate, and then, an umpteenth nanosecond later, they exhibit nothing, not even “being”. It is amazing that some people are want to say so much about something that is so unapparent, to our eyes, that it is universally called “virtual”. (Virtual does not mean real.)

Now, to radioactive decay: the properties of a decaying radioactive isotope are its matter and the matter’s instability. Science my have to look some more to discover the cause(s) of an atom’s decay. Take water, for instance. If we bring the temperature of the water up to just below full boiling point, the instability caused by the heat will send random molecules of water into the air as steam. Remedial science found the answer to that. It may take more to find the answer to the isotope question, or, it may be as simple as stated for boiling water.

The universe was caused. Because of the logistical impossibility of early mankind to discover this, the early scientists and philosophers were led to believe that it was infinite. I think science has pretty much overcome the logistics of witnessing the color spectrum from areas of the universe as they travel farther from the initial expansion. As for having to establish that “the universe is a single event,” I would want to know why such a restriction was put on the origin of it. My guess is that the reason is spurious. Not to mention that it appears that the prevailing consensus is that it was one event. But, my point is that I am not sure why it matters.

jd

Again, thank you, jd. I certainly don’t mean to hijack this thread. But the discussion does fall under the topic “What God is and how He relates.”

My argument to an opponent (from my own wits, btw) follows the same line of thinking it seems. I maintained that, from the study of the nature of things, it is reasonable to conclude there is singularity, comparability, and superlativeness just from our own observations. Therefore, we can rationally conclude taht there are degrees of qualities inherent in nature, including human beings. I considered that we could compare qualities such as intelligence in people; we can measure various phenomena such as objects on earth and even the brightness of stars. We can get an idea, also, of what it means to be “best” at something.

My opponent disagreed. (Actually, the argument concerned the issue of abortion, but somehow it got to origins). He said "we can compare any two numbers: of the two, there is always a larger. But there is no largest number. Second, because of different types of intelligence, it is not always possible to compare ‘smartness’ of two different people. . . the same goes for beauty. . . " I was trying to get to the idea that we extrapolate what these qualities actually mean by studying nature. He blamed Aristotle and suggested that I read some philosophy from the last 400 years because “his whole scheme has been shown to be deficient.”

As for a Prime Movver, I was informed that a “Prime” mover does not logically have to have any other properties other than being uncaused. “Superlativeness is another unjustified assumption.”

The word “transfinite,” means “beyond finite” or, in other words, infinite. So how can that be a finite number? That’s the question posed.

I mentioned the effect of an infinite universe by quoting your thesis that with an infinite reality “there would be no bounds, no beginning, no ending. It would be a circle.” That idea was dismissed.

I don’t think the secular humanist/atheist can really understand the need for philosophy. These people attempt to prove/disprove anyone’s assertions from the point of view of science only. But that is what is being taught in colleges and universities. As you mentioned about VIRTUAL particles and radioactive decay, they think they have all the answers without any need for further investigation.

In any case, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Since I’m traveling early tomorrow morning for a few days, I may not get back to this forum during that time.
God bless!

Rookie

 

[Detales]

jd, sticking a label on something, especially an inacurate one, is an insufficient argument other than to indicate that you do not believe in a particualr way. In this case it would seem to be because someone else told you not to, as you clearly don’t understand the matter at hand from the perspective offered. If you did, you would be able to say in your own words what that was. But thank you for your effort. I will grant that it is an extremely subtle area, and I would have, in my days of fervor for the Church, easily equal to yours at present, have made a similar argument, except that I would not have reduced it to an irrelavant epithet. Your effort mildly resembles calling the enemy by a derogatory name in order to de-personalize them. It is a tactic, if you have been in the military, to desensitize you from having to deal with the full impact of your actions. Here it is to avoid a sincere effort to understand. Welcome to the wonderful world of–what is it?–104+cognative errors in analysis? I’m certainly not immune to this, lol!, but your case here is pretty obvious.

O_mlly, immanent is a good stab, but misses the actual point. And the “natural reason” and “ex nihilo” are essentially materilalistic stances based on extensions of anthropomorphism. God is not anthropomorphic. Your statements also are very different in understanding of “Word” than what I refer to, yours again requiring and unnecessary and impossible externality. In other words, close, but sideways.

ReggieM, if you can imagine “good and the perfection of all good” you are equal to God. Other than that. yours is an intelectual assertion, meaningless as such in this matter, though that statement points to something far greater and inclusive than it seems means in the context you used it in, as far as I can tell.

And again, jd, the “jinx Christians threw into the mix in order to muck things up a bit” is the misinterpretation of the Christ and the whole meaning of the Jesus story. That is the tragedy of christianism and its anthropomorphisms. The Christ is the name given to the only possible way out of your Catholic mesmerism. The Christ, embodied as Jesus, is the only real aspect of any of this. As Jesus was reputed to say: “I AM the Way, The Truth, and the Light.”

 

[JDaniel]

The word “transfinite,” means “beyond finite” or, in other words, infinite. So how can that be a finite number? That’s the question posed.

I mentioned the effect of an infinite universe by quoting your thesis that with an infinite reality “there would be no bounds, no beginning, no ending. It would be a circle.” That idea was dismissed.

Here’s an interesting quote from a mathematician, Jim Loy (The bolding is mine.):
“In my mathematics pages, I have repeatedly warned that infinity is not a number, and that treating infinity as a number leads to trouble (mostly wrong answers). Some of my readers have probably shaken their heads at my ignorance, because they know that Georg Cantor showed that infinity is a number, and that there are several infinities of varying sizes. Let me repeat that infinity is not a number, and that treating infinity as a number leads to trouble (mostly wrong answers). But, it is extremely productive to consider the idea of infinity as a number, and see where it leads. We still need to be careful to never treat infinity as a number in most branches of mathematics. In this one branch of mathematics, the study of transfinite numbers, we will treat infinity as a number. And we will get some interesting and valid results, which we can apply to other branches of mathematics.” - Jimloy.com

I remain constantly amazed that people continuously hijack words, concepts and definitions for their own purposes, and without any sufficient reason. This seems to be the case with your debate partner, and represents either serious disingenuousness, or, serious lack of understanding. Until about 150 years ago, when Georg Cantor hijacked the word and the meaning of “transfinite” for the purposes of his theoretical mathematics called “set theory”, the word always meant “an extremely large, finite number” - so large, in fact, that, to our minds, it seems to be infinite. (That’s because nobody wanted to take the time to do a count, I guess!)

But, transfinite (number) does not equal infinity (number). And, in reality, and, in quantum mathematics and quantum physics infinity does not mean a number, period. It means a potentiality, ever growing number, that at any point along the sequence, another number can be added to. There is no number “infinity”. If there is, have him tell you what that number is. If he says it is 1 x 10 to the trillionth power, what do you have when you add “1” to it? Or," 2"?

Your next question for him would be, “is there an existing infinity anywhere in the universe? Where?” Infinity exists nowhere in our temporal, material universe. Not even the universe. Consider the sub-atomic and atomic particles that the universe consists of. Even that number is non-infinite and, transfinite.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

jd, sticking a label on something, especially an inacurate one, is an insufficient argument other than to indicate that you do not believe in a particualr way. In this case it would seem to be because someone else told you not to, as you clearly don’t understand the matter at hand from the perspective offered. If you did, you would be able to say in your own words what that was. But thank you for your effort. I will grant that it is an extremely subtle area, and I would have, in my days of fervor for the Church, easily equal to yours at present, have made a similar argument, except that I would not have reduced it to an irrelavant epithet. Your effort mildly resembles calling the enemy by a derogatory name in order to de-personalize them. It is a tactic, if you have been in the military, to desensitize you from having to deal with the full impact of your actions. Here it is to avoid a sincere effort to understand. Welcome to the wonderful world of–what is it?–104+cognative errors in analysis? I’m certainly not immune to this, lol!, but your case here is pretty obvious.

Detales, as I did not find an answer to my query elsewhere in the thread, nor did I find one in the preceding paragraph, you have left me (and probably the rest of us) in the middle of a smoke-filled desert with no directions for escape and no one to get directions from. What, then, was the purpose of your post? I ask this with all due respect, as I don’t know what you want us to do with your expository.

If you do not regard your philosophy as Monism, but, you do regard it as monistic, in part, even that would help.

jd

 

[reggieM]

ReggieM, if you can imagine “good and the perfection of all good” you are equal to God. Other than that. yours is an intelectual assertion, meaningless as such in this matter, though that statement points to something far greater and inclusive than it seems means in the context you used it in, as far as I can tell.

Actually, God does not imagine anything so if I could imagine the perfection of good, I would not be equal to God because I would be imagining and God does not need to imagine. I also do not agree that expressions of one’s intellect are “meaningless as such” since it is through the intellect that we find meaning.

 

[JDaniel]

And again, jd, the “jinx Christians threw into the mix in order to muck things up a bit” is the misinterpretation of the Christ and the whole meaning of the Jesus story. That is the tragedy of christianism and its anthropomorphisms. The Christ is the name given to the only possible way out of your Catholic mesmerism. The Christ, embodied as Jesus, is the only real aspect of any of this. As Jesus was reputed to say: “I AM the Way, The Truth, and the Light.”

Could you please explain this in more detail? I have no idea what you are talking about, except that it seems to “slam” Christianity. Christ was not “embodied as Jesus,” Jesus Christ was made man, unless you mean Christ in the form of “Messiah”. Thereafter, He lived, suffered, was crucified, died and was buried. Then, He rose from the dead, showed Himself and His wounds to various people until He finally ascended into heaven, and is seated as part of our Triune God.

Also, what do you mean by “Catholic mesmerism?” And, that “Christ is the only way out” . . . for Catholics?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

My argument to an opponent (from my own wits, btw) follows the same line of thinking it seems. I maintained that, from the study of the nature of things, it is reasonable to conclude there is singularity, comparability, and superlativeness just from our own observations. Therefore, we can rationally conclude that there are degrees of qualities inherent in nature, including human beings. I considered that we could compare qualities such as intelligence in people; we can measure various phenomena such as objects on earth and even the brightness of stars. We can get an idea, also, of what it means to be “best” at something.

My opponent disagreed.

Interesting. So, a runner who beats out every other runner is not said to be the best? Is he not the fastest?

(Actually, the argument concerned the issue of abortion, but somehow it got to origins). He said "we can compare any two numbers: of the two, there is always a larger. But there is no largest number.

I have no idea what he’s trying to get at here, except perhaps that he actually does hold to the idea that infinity is not a number.

Second, because of different types of intelligence, it is not always possible to compare ‘smartness’ of two different people. . . the same goes for beauty. . . " I was trying to get to the idea that we extrapolate what these qualities actually mean by studying nature. He blamed Aristotle and suggested that I read some philosophy from the last 400 years because “his whole scheme has been shown to be deficient.”

Anti-theists often like to make broad, sweeping statements like, “his whole scheme has been shown to be deficient.” As nothing more than a categorical assertion, it does nothing for or against his position, except, possibly, that it exposes his weakness. The only practical refutation - unless you want to copy and paste all of Aristotle’s books into a thread, word for word - is to categorically deny his position and let it rest. Or, you could suggest that he demonstrate his proposition. IOW, prove it.

As for a Prime Mover, I was informed that a “Prime” mover does not logically have to have any other properties other than being uncaused.

I think he means, “unmoved” (changeless). This is true.

“Superlativeness is another unjustified assumption.”

This concept is ontological. We do, in fact, experience gradations of being and beings. We can add, or take away, attributes to make a thing, or things, more or less better. For example, from St. Anselm’s ontological argument that “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, it follows that, if He can be conceived, He, assuredly must exist. Because, if he does not exist, than what you have conceived is not God, and there is something better yet, that exists, and thus is God.

I don’t think the secular humanist/atheist can really understand the need for philosophy. These people attempt to prove/disprove anyone’s assertions from the point of view of science only. But that is what is being taught in colleges and universities. As you mentioned about VIRTUAL particles and radioactive decay, they think they have all the answers without any need for further investigation.

More precisely, they do not understand the need for metaphysics. It is also amazing how easily “poorly rounded” people will try to dismiss Aristotle. He’s only the Father of Zoology, and the Father of Biology, the very two sciences that inordinately bound to destroy him.

God go with you on your journey,
jd

 

[o_mlly]

…
O_mlly, immanent is a good stab, but misses the actual point. And the “natural reason” and “ex nihilo” are essentially materilalistic stances based on extensions of anthropomorphism. God is not anthropomorphic. Your statements also are very different in understanding of “Word” than what I refer to, yours again requiring and unnecessary and impossible externality. In other words, close, but sideways.

I’m sorry but your post seems quite muddled to me.

“Natural reason” i.e. a construct of abstract ideas and “ex nihilo” (out of nothing) are essentially non-materialistic. And professing, as I did, a transcendent God (as opposed to your pantheistic scheme) grounds God in His own being and not as an extension of human characteristics (anthropomorphism).

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[PJM]

=aball1035;5024156]My question is a little hard to put into words…

If God Is all knowing, powerful, the Supreme Being for the Universe, etc… then why isn’t there just His “spirit” and why are there “things”.

Maybe the question is-why is there something instead of simply God “being”?

The answer lies in great part on the How and the Why God Created us?

Gen. ch.1: 26 "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

So that explains "the “how.” Now what about the “why.”

Those of us old enough to have memorized the Baltimore Catechesim remember well that question: “why did God make us?”

Answer: “To know, LOVE, and serve Him in this worls so that we could be happy with Him in the next.”

Only humanity has been gifted by God with mind, intellect, reason, freewill, and memory. All Spiritual attributes, possessed by God Himself.

In all of the Wonders of the Created Universe, in the entire world, only humanity is so endowed precisely so that we could, and SHOULD LOVE God in return for Who He is, What He has done, and what He continues to do.

Exo. 20: 1" And God spoke all these words, saying, 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

That is why we are Created in “the image and likeness of God Himself”!

 

[rookieonedge]

You are very welcome. I love philosophy, and, I love my God. So, for me, this is the best of all possible worlds.

 

[JDaniel]

Daniel;5133809:

Thank you, jd, for your patience in explaining complex metaphysical understandings. As I mentioned before, I find the subject of Cosmology fascinating. The more we learn, the more we SHOULD see the astounding beauty and wisdom in God’s creation. I find it difficult to see otherwise, that is, as an “anti-theist” borrowing your term.

For example, the debater on another board informed me that I am “stuck in temporal aspects of this discussion.” He goes on to say, “If you regard time as part of the geometry and our experiences as being also within that geometry, you can see that none of your conclusions hold by necessity. For example, the size of the latitude line increases as we move towards the equator, but there is still a static geometry within which this change happens.” He said I should get out of “two and three dimensional reasoning.” I asked for a further explanation: “The analogy works as follows: time is represented by latitude measured from the south pole and space is measured by the longitude. Things in the same place at different times are on the same longitude line, but at different latitudes. Things at the same time are at the same latitude, but different longitudes. So, each latitude line represents all of space at a particular time. As time moves forward (up from the south pole), the universe expands (the latitude lines get larger) until the equator, then ‘space’ contracts until the north pole is reached. There is no ‘time before the south pole’ and no ‘time after the north pole.’”

His hypothesis has merit. The Hubble telescope is said to be able to see all the way to the edges of the universe. We still don’t know what’s beyond the edges.

That’s suppose to be an analogy that is only 2-dimensional, however, rather than 4-dimensional (3 of space, 1 of time). His conclusion is that “there could be no ‘before the Big Bang’ and hence no ‘cause’ of such.” Also, that “space can expand without expanding into anything (other than the future?).”

Well, there could be other hypotheses for the nothingness that space-time is expanding into, and, there are. Also, while it is highly probable that there is no “physical” cause “before” the big bang, there could be a non-physical cause. What do you think that might possibly be?

But how can he reconcile that the universe is “self-contained?” Somewhere is mentioned that the expansion is not of things moving through space, but of space itself. “Once you look at the ‘whole’ entity throughout space and time as a single thing, you realize that causality depends on time and so is only a part of the universe.” Conclusion? That the universe “as a whole (throughout time) is causeless.” I don’t readily see how “causality” is “only part of the universe,” but, hey, what do I know?

Remember, one the the key ingredients of Aquinas’ Proofs is that they refer to causal sequence, not, causality-in-time. So, we can, in fact, intellectualize cause without time but not through our senses.

What should I infer about the “logistics of witnessing the color spectrum from areas of the universe as they travel farther from the initial expansion,” if you will?

Red shift. Indicates expansion of the universe.

jd

 

[rookieonedge]

Hi jd,

His hypothesis has merit. The Hubble telescope is said to be able to see all the way to the edges of the universe. We still don’t know what’s beyond the edges.

You said in one post that, “The need to do this is out of my control.” It seems that the Holy Spirit has your work cut out for you. I just don’t want to be prresumptuous expecting you to answer all of the Big Quesions (not at once anyway). God has planted seeds in our souls that we can either nuture or let go to waste. I understand from previous reading that the Hubble telescope is outmoded, and that another one will be taking its place.

Well, there could be other hypotheses for the nothingness that space-time is expanding into, and, there are. Also, while it is highly probable that there is no “physical” cause “before” the big bang, there could be a non-physical cause. What do you think that might possibly be?

I know that’s a rhetorical question, God being the First Cause.

Remember, one the the key ingredients of Aquinas’ Proofs is that they refer to causal sequence, not, causality-in-time. So, we can, in fact, intellectualize cause without time but not through our senses.

It was argued that, “Causes are in time. If there is not time, there is no cause nor need of cause. Things simply ‘are.’” (I had presented one of Aquinas’ proofs, but it was declared null and void, it seems). The secular humanists fall back on the science-only way of investigating, so it’s impossible to try to help them see “outside of the box”, so to speak, although theists are accused of thinking “in the box.”

I said that it can’t be proven (using the scientific method) that God exists, and it can’t be proven, otherwise, that He doesn’t exist. I was informed that the reason science can’t show the non-existence of a deity “is simply that nobody seems to be able to agree enough about what properties a deity would have to get a testable property out of things.” Believing, for “anti-theists” becomes a “personal whim.”

When I used the example of the complexity of a cell with over 60 or so component parts and the subtlety and complexity of the strings of DNA, I was told that I’m assuming there is a “large distinction between life and non-life” and that, “Life is a fairly complex collection of chemical reations, but that is all it is. . .”

The argument of design “falls” because it assumes that “to make complex patterns and structures, an even more complex thing must exist. . . It is possible for a system with only four simple rules to make patterns as complex as any that a computer can make.” Because of the number and kinds of interactions among elementary particles, “complex structures are produced.” (That includes the cell, so it was decided).

What I need to do is more reading (and, I suppose, less posting) to understand basic concepts. I’m still reading Aquinas. Another book on Aquinas suggested (perhaps on this thread) is by Copleston. There are a few others I’ve written down.

God bless you and yours!
Rookie

 

[o_mlly]

rooking;5146351:

His hypothesis has merit. The Hubble telescope is said to be able to see all the way to the edges of the universe. We still don’t know what’s beyond the edges.

If we don’t know what is beyond the “edges” of the universe, how can we know we are looking at its “edges”?

rooking;5146351:

Well, there could be other hypotheses for the nothingness that space-time is expanding into, and, there are. Also, while it is highly probable that there is no “physical” cause “before”

the big bang, there could be a non-physical cause. What do you think that might possibly be?

We can hypothesize in all sorts of un-provable scenarios. For instance, doesn’t reason suggest that the energy of the “big bang,” as a static burst of energy and the cause of an expanding universe is necessarily decaying? The attraction of matter, gravity, a continuous source of energy, impedes the expansion and, since it is continuous, will eventually exhaust the static energy of the “big bang” resulting in a collapsing universe.

Which leaves us open to a theory that the “big bang” was not an event but a cycle of continuous “big bangs” and subsequent collapses of the universe to the point that the density matter squeezed out its attractive properties such that gravity spontaneously reverses repelling matter itself in a cataclysmic reaction.

We cannot know the particulars of God’s plan with any certainty except those which He wills to reveal to us . However, it is fun to speculate as long as one knows it’s only speculation.

rooking;5146351:

Remember, one the the key ingredients of Aquinas’ Proofs is that they refer to causal sequence

, not, causality-in-time. So, we can, in fact, intellectualize cause without time but not through our senses…

Isn’t the term sequence necessarily related to only actions in time? There is no sequence in eternity as it implies change to an immutable condition.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[JDaniel]

If we don’t know what is beyond the “edges” of the universe, how can we know we are looking at its “edges”?

Good question! Nonetheless, there are tracts about the Hubble, on the World Wide Web, that say that the telescope can “see” to the universe’s edge.

We can hypothesize in all sorts of un-provable scenarios. For instance, doesn’t reason suggest that the energy of the “big bang,” as a static burst of energy and the cause of an expanding universe is necessarily decaying? The attraction of matter, gravity, a continuous source of energy, impedes the expansion and, since it is continuous, will eventually exhaust the static energy of the “big bang” resulting in a collapsing universe.

Which leaves us open to a theory that the “big bang” was not an event but a cycle of continuous “big bangs” and subsequent collapses of the universe to the point that the density matter squeezed out its attractive properties such that gravity spontaneously reverses repelling matter itself in a cataclysmic reaction.

That is one of the hypotheses out there. However, mankind is probably exceedingly more sure of the singular event of expansion and contraction, than of multiple events, i.e., multiple universes.

We cannot know the particulars of God’s plan with any certainty except those which He wills to reveal to us . However, it is fun to speculate as long as one knows it’s only speculation.

Yes it is.

Isn’t the term sequence necessarily related to only actions in time? There is no sequence in eternity as it implies change to an immutable condition.

Well, then, if duration (or, time) consists of a sequence (or, series) of different states each succeeding the other - which can be measured by our standards of time - how does this temporally existing sequence exist in the mind, or will, of a perfectly complete being that is one invariable state, ever-present and without beginning or end? It can only exist as “sequence” - by itself.

Secondly, how do the four causes, or, aition from the Greek, exist temporally? They each exist, as things, in the here and now. How they each came to be is another, earlier, causal series. However, as a singular, atemporal idea in the mind of a man (e.g., as first efficient cause), the sequence of first efficient cause, intermediate efficient cause(s), and final efficient cause exists sequentially but only contingently in time. “Contingently” only because they exist in the mind of a temporal being. The production of the effect, from these causes, is another matter, distinct from the sequence of causes, but, contingent upon them.

jd

 

[o_mlly]

…
Well, then, if duration (or, time) consists of a sequence (or, series) of different states each succeeding the other - which can be measured by our standards of time - how does this temporally existing sequence exist in the mind, or will, of a perfectly complete being that is one invariable state, ever-present and without beginning or end? It can only exist as “sequence” - by itself.

All the moments of time are present to divine eternity. In eternity, an instant endures without beginning or end. For instance, Christ’s death and resurrection is the creative idea of God, and, because the creative idea exists according to its Creator’s measure (eternity), our salvation is now. Eucharist allows us to break the bonds of time. At Eucharist, doing as Jesus commanded—“Do this in memory of me,” we call to mind the sacrifice of Jesus making His sacrifice a present reality.

We are also creative ideas in the mind of God, but we are created beings assigned a different measure which is the succession of time. While God see everything, the remotest causes and their final effects, from the center of eternity; we can only see the immediate causes and the proximate effects. A re-read of Job might be helpful in illuminating what must remain for us now a mystery.

Secondly, how do the four causes, or, aition from the Greek, exist temporally? They each exist, as things, in the here and now. How they each came to be is another, earlier, causal series. However, as a singular, atemporal idea in the mind of a man (e.g., as first efficient cause), the sequence of first efficient cause, intermediate efficient cause(s), and final efficient cause exists sequentially but only contingently in time. “Contingently” only because they exist in the mind of a temporal being. The production of the effect, from these causes, is another matter, distinct from the sequence of causes, but, contingent upon them.jd

I understand the four causes – formal, material, efficient and final – as abstract ideas in the mind of a contingent being, man. However, under the conformance theory of truth, if the contingent being’s mind is in conformance with God’s reality, then his ideas are truth and they correspond to the necessary or absolute ideas of his Creator who is not contingent but necessary.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[rookieonedge]

JDaniel;5146813:

If we don’t know what is beyond the “edges” of the universe, how can we know we are looking at its “edges”?

Hello o_mlly,

First of all, let me explain that what you have in quotes are actually what poster jdaniel said. (I’m just starting to use the quote system and find myself making a mistake about where to write material). You certainly have a good question. As my moniker states, I’m a rookie when it comes to metaphysics, science & math, but I enjoy learning. Other posters, such as jdaniel, are much more knowledeable, but I have a couple of comments.

I think there is a problem for those who don’t adhere to either Creationism or Intelligent Design in that they maintain the universe is expanding, yet we can “know we are looking at its ‘edges,’” as you say. I read in another post, however, that they consider space to be expanding, not the universe per se. But, then, what is space, if it is not part of the universe?

We can hypothesize in all sorts of un-provable scenarios. For instance, doesn’t reason suggest that the energy of the “big bang,” as a static burst of energy and the cause of an expanding universe is necessarily decaying? The attraction of matter, gravity, a continuous source of energy, impedes the expansion and, since it is continuous, will eventually exhaust the static energy of the “big bang” resulting in a collapsing universe.

event but a cycle of continuous “big bangs” and subsequent collapses of the universe to the point that the density matter squeezed out its attractive properties such that gravity spontaneously reverses repelling matter itself in a cataclysmic reaction.

I read an opinion that once the universe has stretched itself beyond the point of elasticity, it will reverse itself and collapse. This would be after the “static enery of the ‘big bang’” as you pointed out “exhausts” itself. However, I also read on another post that the universe is not expanding “into” anything, except, perhaps, the “future.” This poster argues, “The point is that time is part of the geometry of the univverse. Once you lok at the ‘whole’ entity throughout space and time as a single thing, you realize that causality depends on time and so is only a part of the universe.” In this poster’s thinking, it follows that the universe, “as a whole, (throughout time) is causeless.”

Some postulate that the “chemistry” of the universe didn’t just happen, but is the “reult of the laws of physics and the particular history of the earth (including that of the sun and the Milky Way galaxy). . . The universe was already 9 billion years old when the earth was formed via gravitaional collapse.” That seems to be in agreement with what you said about how the earth formed and that there probably were a series of collapses.

Isn’t the term sequence

necessarily related to only actions in time? There is no sequence in eternity as it implies change to an immutable condition.

That’s why there can’t be an infinite regression of causes. We can “intellectualize cause without time” as poster jdaniel writes.
However, another poster argues that simply because “there is a bound on something (say in the past)”, that is not enough to claim a “first” time. ". . .if we only look at those times with t>0, there is no ‘first’; we can always look at half the time and that is before. There is a strong suggestion that this is the case in reality: ther is a bound to how far back we can go in time, but there was not a ‘first instant’.

God bless!
Rookie

 

[JDaniel]

Hi jd,

You said in one post that, “The need to do this is out of my control.” It seems that the Holy Spirit has your work cut out for you. I just don’t want to be presumptuous expecting you to answer all of the Big Questions (not at once anyway). God has planted seeds in our souls that we can either nurture or let go to waste. I understand from previous reading that the Hubble telescope is outmoded, and that another one will be taking its place.

Yeah, from what I am reading, the Hubble is about to undergo a serious upgrade that will keep it cutting-edge for a while. Perhaps we’ll even be able to peer slightly into the void beyond the edge.

It was argued that, “Causes are in time. If there is not time, there is no cause nor need of cause. Things simply ‘are.’” (I had presented one of Aquinas’ proofs, but it was declared null and void, it seems).

The causes do not exist in time of necessity. Obviously, when an architect (or, builder) envisions the production of a house, for example, all of the efficient causes - first, intermediate, and final - exist in sequence, but, outside of time. It is unfortunate that the only word in the English language that is exigent to translate the Greek, aition, to is “cause”.

"Each of these ‘causes’ was a different sense of the Greek word aition, which Aristotle thought was ambiguous and needed to be clarified. English cause, however, is not so unclear, and its use here can unfortunately lead to confusion. Only one of the four ‘causes’ (the efficient cause) approximates the concept expressed by the English word cause. It has been suggested that an English word of parallel ambiguity is the verb ‘make’. - from Wikipedia.

I said that it can’t be proven (using the scientific method) that God exists, and it can’t be proven, otherwise, that He doesn’t exist. I was informed that the reason science can’t show the non-existence of a deity “is simply that nobody seems to be able to agree enough about what properties a deity would have to get a testable property out of things.” Believing, for “anti-theists” becomes a “personal whim.”

No doubt. However, I must say that there is plenty of agreement as to the determinates of God, but, there are none that can be laid open in a science lab. The determinates of Prime Mover, First Efficient Cause, Necessary Cause, Highest Good, and Final Cause have been demonstrated by St. Thomas not in a science laboratory, but, rather in the laboratory of logic. The only refutational confrontations against them have come from ambiguifying the terms due to translation limitations.

When I used the example of the complexity of a cell with over 60 or so component parts and the subtlety and complexity of the strings of DNA, I was told that I’m assuming there is a “large distinction between life and non-life” and that, “Life is a fairly complex collection of chemical reactions, but that is all it is. . .”

The biggest problem with this is composition itself. There are no intrinsic reasons for the primary elements of the physical universe to cause them to compose themselves as they have. They are all contingent, non-self-determining elements. So, the non-theist must attribute a huge number of possible “causes” to their various compositions, and pray that science approves them all.

Not to mention the fact that when we perceive inanimate matter, it is all the same. The clumpings of matter take on different “formations”, but, even these have no intrinsic urgency. On the other hand, complex living things have form that is urgently intrinsic to each being. In fact, the more complex the living thing the more we can make out the individuality of each matter/form composition. And, the matter/form composition cannot be broken apart except by death, whereas, the matter/form composition of an inanimate, such as oxygen gas, can be broken up and no “death” of the material takes place.

The argument of design “falls” because it assumes that “to make complex patterns and structures, an even more complex thing must exist. . . It is possible for a system with only four simple rules to make patterns as complex as any that a computer can make.” Because of the number and kinds of interactions among elementary particles, “complex structures are produced.” (That includes the cell, so it was decided).

Again, there is no intrinsic reason for inanimate elements to have composed themselves as they did, regardless of the number and kinds of interactions ORIGINALLY between them. This is contradictory: it assumes the initial existences of intrinsic necessities that resulted in compositions essentially compatible with each other. It is not difficult to understand that a pandemic that wipes out all of mankind is possible, but, not probable. There are enough people worldwide to implement some sort of preventative measures to complete extermination. However, when the first one, or few, living things arose in the primordial ocean, the numbers would have been insufficient to maintain life in perpetuity, with the equal probability of life-incompatible things. Remember, the dinosaurs were wiped out.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

All the moments of time are present to divine eternity. In eternity, an instant endures without beginning or end. For instance, Christ’s death and resurrection is the creative idea of God, and, because the creative idea exists according to its Creator’s measure (eternity), our salvation is now. Eucharist allows us to break the bonds of time. At Eucharist, doing as Jesus commanded—“Do this in memory of me,” we call to mind the sacrifice of Jesus making His sacrifice a present reality.

We are also creative ideas in the mind of God, but we are created beings assigned a different measure which is the succession of time. While God see everything, the remotest causes and their final effects, from the center of eternity; we can only see the immediate causes and the proximate effects. A re-read of Job might be helpful in illuminating what must remain for us now a mystery.

I understand the four causes – formal, material, efficient and final – as abstract ideas in the mind of a contingent being, man. However, under the conformance theory of truth, if the contingent being’s mind is in conformance with God’s reality, then his ideas are truth and they correspond to the necessary or absolute ideas of his Creator who is not contingent but necessary.

Peace,
O’Malley

I do understand your contention. All I am trying to convey is that sequence does not or necessity imply, or require, time. Take for instance, the numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. These exist in sequence but are not time-dependent.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I think there is a problem for those who don’t adhere to either Creationism or Intelligent Design in that they maintain the universe is expanding, yet we can “know we are looking at its ‘edges,’” as you say. I read in another post, however, that they consider space to be expanding, not the universe per se. But, then, what is space, if it is not part of the universe?

Good question, Rookie.

I read an opinion that once the universe has stretched itself beyond the point of elasticity, it will reverse itself and collapse. This would be after the “static enery of the ‘big bang’” as you pointed out “exhausts” itself. However, I also read on another post that the universe is not expanding “into” anything, except, perhaps, the “future.” This poster argues, “The point is that time is part of the geometry of the univverse. Once you lok at the ‘whole’ entity throughout space and time as a single thing, you realize that causality depends on time and so is only a part of the universe.” In this poster’s thinking, it follows that the universe, “as a whole, (throughout time) is causeless.”

But, if time is the measure of motion, it is the measure of the motion of what? Even space is “something”.

Some postulate that the “chemistry” of the universe didn’t just happen, but is the “reult of the laws of physics and the particular history of the earth (including that of the sun and the Milky Way galaxy). . . The universe was already 9 billion years old when the earth was formed via gravitational collapse.” That seems to be in agreement with what you said about how the earth formed and that there probably were a series of collapses.

The problem is, that recent dark energy findings (whatever they may be) seem to indicate that the universe might be expanding perpetually, and, therefore, not collapsing. So much for that hypothesis.

However, another poster argues that simply because “there is a bound on something (say in the past)”, that is not enough to claim a “first” time. ". . .if we only look at those times with t>0, there is no ‘first’; we can always look at half the time and that is before. There is a strong suggestion that this is the case in reality: ther is a bound to how far back we can go in time, but there was not a ‘first instant’.

Sounds like fun with mathematics!

If we go back in time to the start, or, the “bound”, or, the beginning, unless one attempts to ambiguitize those words, they all explicitly and implicitly mean “first”. First thing, first edge, first innermost surface, etc. In that same regard, we experience beginning(s), start(s) bound(s) so, why would we conveniently have it/them mean something else on this occasion?

I think that there was a first Planck moment, or, instant. I believe it was the outermost edge of the surface of the singularity, or, instead, the innermost edge of the void which surrounded the singularity.

jd