What is god

[Foofaraw]

How did “spaces with opposite properties” exist without a universe?

Foofaraw:

Pure intelligence is a good start. My favorite complete concept is that God is a consortium of beings that were brought into existence as the result of a cosmic sideswipe between spaces with opposite properties, long before the universe came into existence.

None of these entities were initially conscious. “God” consists of a group (at least two) of them which together derived consciousness without outside assistance, after which, over time, they developed very high intelligence, probably originally in the form of mathematical understanding.

You seem to be talking about an already existing system of things — without an Origin?

To me, if God is God at all, He must be the Origin of all things — otherwise, there is something prior to and thus superior to God. You seem to be saying that that is the case, but that that prior system of existence had no intelligence. This seems parallel to, from an idealist perspective, Buddhism (everything begins in Ignorance), or from a materialist perspective, Physicalism (everything begins as Matter.) Either way, it amounts to Impersonalism, it seems to me — the idea that the Original Reality, whatever it may be, is not personal, and beings with personality (gods) arise from it. The Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu thought also has a similar concept.

Here I invite you to take a different perspective, one in which you temporarily give up your particular beliefs about how the universe was created. That will help you deal with the ideas I had offered, which operate from different assumptions.

Physicist Rupert Sheldrake noted that science can explain anything, provided you grant it one Miracle. The preferred Miracle is that about 14 billion years ago a tiny particle of something suddenly appeared out of nowhere and promptly blew up, producing all the matter and energy in the universe, and all the physical laws and very specific constants that makes the universe work.

I took the liberty here of capitalizing the word Miracle, to imply a special kind of miracle, as an event or condition that cannot be explained, not even by God. One might call this an Absolute Miracle. Turning water into wine would not qualify, because Christ obviously knew how to do it and if God later asked him how he managed that nifty stunt, Christ would surely have been able to explain it to him.

Every religious or metaphysical system begins with at least one such Miracle. Christianity’s Miracle is the existence of an almighty God.

Neither God nor the Big Bang are simple Miracles. The Big Bang produced matter, energy, laws of interaction, and structure. God has all power and all knowledge, everything it takes to create a complete universe in a half-dozen acts of divine will.

I think that if you check out other belief systems you’ll find that all of them assume some sort of Miracle way back at the beginning of things-- provided that the system in question actually attempts to describe the beginnings. You will probably also find that such systems, like the omnipotent God and the Big Bang, include structure within the context of their single Miracle.

The system that I was describing actually requires three Miracles! This might at first seem to be unnecessarily complex, except for a feature that I really like— each Miracle is extremely simple, and involves no structure. Each Miracle existed independently of the others.

The simplest way to describe these Miracles is that each is a “space” that, other than existence, has one and only one inherent property. That property is rudimentary and defines the natural state of its associated space.

These spaces existed before the universe was created, and before its creators came into being. They no longer exist in their original form, having become a universe full of conscious beings. The properties of these spaces lead first to consciousness, then to the creation of physical laws and structure.

I hope that helps. Please forgive me for not answering your other questions. You seem to be coming from a traditional religious position with those questions, whereas I am proposing non-traditional ideas that incorporate concepts of God and soul in a manner that is consistent with physics.

These ideas do not result in a God that meets your standard, as creator of all things. Their intent seems to have been to devise a logical, contradiction-free theology that would prove to be consistent with the known laws of physics, and other aspects of commonly observed reality. For example, they explain things like evolution, human nature, and human purpose, logically and simply. I like them because of their wide range of practical applications. But you seem to be accepting only of ideas that fit your current beliefs, and if that is the case, why even be curious about alternatives?

 

[Aussieman88]

Only that which is finite needs a cause. Science never said that everything needs a cause only that which is finite, That which came into being needs a cause. God by definition is infinite and therefore does not need a cause. So the one who asks the question is positioning the question based on a false assumption. God is an uncaused being.

If the argument is that everything needs a cause then he would have to pose an infinite series of causes and if you have an infinite series of causes over an infinite period of time then you would never have come to this moment because it would have taken an infinite number of moments in order to get here. But because now exists, there has been a finite period of time behind you in order to get here. With God it’s not that everything needs a cause it’s only everything that is finite that needs a cause.

You are either UNCAUSED, SELFCAUSED OR CAUSED BY ANOTHER.
everything that is Selfcaused is self defeating because something has to exist prior to you being affected. To be caused by another, that person has to exist before you and if that person is finite he or she needs to be caused as well. The only thing that remains? UNCAUSED, is that which is infinite. The definition of which is, an uncaused entity, which is God.

In addition:
1: If you take Everything or Anything Physical in this world. No matter how you section it, divide it, split it, - it has a reason for its existence outside of itself. The only thing therefore that could explain its own existence would have to be something NON physical.

1. Any time you see that which is intelligent, you assume an intelligence behind it.
2. When you look at the human experience and in history, you see the revelation of God coming to us in the person of christ through the old and the new testaments.

So who is God? He is a spiritual, intelligent being who has entered history and disclosed himself. Revealed himself to humankind. That’s who God is.

This explanation is from Ravi Zacharias one of the worlds leading apologists.

 

[Love4All]

Here I invite you to take a different perspective, one in which you temporarily give up your particular beliefs about how the universe was created. That will help you deal with the ideas I had offered, which operate from different assumptions.

Physicist Rupert Sheldrake noted that science can explain anything, provided you grant it one Miracle. The preferred Miracle is that about 14 billion years ago a tiny particle of something suddenly appeared out of nowhere and promptly blew up, producing all the matter and energy in the universe, and all the physical laws and very specific constants that makes the universe work.

I took the liberty here of capitalizing the word Miracle, to imply a special kind of miracle, as an event or condition that cannot be explained, not even by God. One might call this an Absolute Miracle. Turning water into wine would not qualify, because Christ obviously knew how to do it and if God later asked him how he managed that nifty stunt, Christ would surely have been able to explain it to him.

Every religious or metaphysical system begins with at least one such Miracle. Christianity’s Miracle is the existence of an almighty God.

Neither God nor the Big Bang are simple Miracles. The Big Bang produced matter, energy, laws of interaction, and structure. God has all power and all knowledge, everything it takes to create a complete universe in a half-dozen acts of divine will.

I think that if you check out other belief systems you’ll find that all of them assume some sort of Miracle way back at the beginning of things-- provided that the system in question actually attempts to describe the beginnings. You will probably also find that such systems, like the omnipotent God and the Big Bang, include structure within the context of their single Miracle.

The system that I was describing actually requires three Miracles! This might at first seem to be unnecessarily complex, except for a feature that I really like— each Miracle is extremely simple, and involves no structure. Each Miracle existed independently of the others.

The simplest way to describe these Miracles is that each is a “space” that, other than existence, has one and only one inherent property. That property is rudimentary and defines the natural state of its associated space.

These spaces existed before the universe was created, and before its creators came into being. They no longer exist in their original form, having become a universe full of conscious beings. The properties of these spaces lead first to consciousness, then to the creation of physical laws and structure.

I hope that helps. Please forgive me for not answering your other questions. You seem to be coming from a traditional religious position with those questions, whereas I am proposing non-traditional ideas that incorporate concepts of God and soul in a manner that is consistent with physics.

These ideas do not result in a God that meets your standard, as creator of all things. Their intent seems to have been to devise a logical, contradiction-free theology that would prove to be consistent with the known laws of physics, and other aspects of commonly observed reality. For example, they explain things like evolution, human nature, and human purpose, logically and simply. I like them because of their wide range of practical applications. But you seem to be accepting only of ideas that fit your current beliefs, and if that is the case, why even be curious about alternatives?

Thank you for a very clear and well-thought-out dissertation!

I recognize that my particular statements of my individual belief can come across as dogmatic, and I’m not really clear on how to remedy that without abandoning the truth that I know. I will not abandon the truth that I know, but it is what it is, and stating a truth that is what it is always seems to come across as dogmatic especially to those who would prefer that truth is what they preferred it was, rather than simply what it is.

It is perhaps, that some hold that truth is not knowable to us quite as deeply as I hold that it is knowable to us. Thus, some seem to hold that there is room for improvisation on the truth, according, again, to what we might prefer as opposed to the simple acceptance of what is.

I am interested in the truth as it is, without any additions or subtractions deriving from my own personal whims. If I have found out something to be the truth, then I cannot very well abandon it by some pretense to be “open-minded.” I am actually very open-minded, but new information can never contradict known truth. I am familiar with a common Zeitgeist these days that says all philosophy must be based on the scientific model, where all our knowledge is conditional and subject to revision. Yet here we are on a Catholic discussion forum, and the Catholic Church possesses truths that are timeless, and cannot be contradicted by new information.

Above, you state,

"I am proposing non-traditional ideas that incorporate concepts of God and soul in a manner that is consistent with physics.

"These ideas do not result in a God that meets your standard, as creator of all things. "

I’d appreciate your demonstration of a contradiction, if you can do so. I am all for new approaches to understanding, and I am interested, very interested in fact, in an overarching understanding that contradicts neither Catholic Doctrine nor the findings of science. You appear to be implying that a world view that embraces the findings of science necessarily contradicts Catholic Doctrine somehow, and I’d appreciate a clear demonstration of exactly how.

Thanks in advance, and thank you for your interest and time!

 

[Aloysium]

interesting, simple question
that brings to mind the CS Lewis Quote of the day (app on my phone):

“It was when I was happiest that I longed most . . . The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing . . . to find the place where all the beauty came from.”

no definition, explanation or proof but it does point to the Answer

 

[Foofaraw]

Thank you for a very clear and well-thought-out dissertation!

I recognize that my particular statements of my individual belief can come across as dogmatic, and I’m not really clear on how to remedy that without abandoning the truth that I know. I will not abandon the truth that I know, but it is what it is, and stating a truth that is what it is always seems to come across as dogmatic especially to those who would prefer that truth is what they preferred it was, rather than simply what it is.

It is perhaps, that some hold that truth is not knowable to us quite as deeply as I hold that it is knowable to us. Thus, some seem to hold that there is room for improvisation on the truth, according, again, to what we might prefer as opposed to the simple acceptance of what is.

I am interested in the truth as it is, without any additions or subtractions deriving from my own personal whims. If I have found out something to be the truth, then I cannot very well abandon it by some pretense to be “open-minded.” I am actually very open-minded, but new information can never contradict known truth. I am familiar with a common Zeitgeist these days that says all philosophy must be based on the scientific model, where all our knowledge is conditional and subject to revision. Yet here we are on a Catholic discussion forum, and the Catholic Church possesses truths that are timeless, and cannot be contradicted by new information.

Above, you state,

"I am proposing non-traditional ideas that incorporate concepts of God and soul in a manner that is consistent with physics.

"These ideas do not result in a God that meets your standard, as creator of all things. "

I’d appreciate your demonstration of a contradiction, if you can do so. I am all for new approaches to understanding, and I am interested, very interested in fact, in an overarching understanding that contradicts neither Catholic Doctrine nor the findings of science. You appear to be implying that a world view that embraces the findings of science necessarily contradicts Catholic Doctrine somehow, and I’d appreciate a clear demonstration of exactly how.

Thanks in advance, and thank you for your interest and time!

Love4–

Let me first share some thoughts about personal attitudes toward the nature and identification of truth. The thoughts/feelings you’ve expressed above mirror my own from a few decades back, before mine changed-- the most difficult change I’ve ever made. Back then, had anyone proposed ideas like those I’ve put forth here, I would have vehemently denied their potential reality. Thought, conversation, and experience have changed me from a dogmatic Catholic in the process of learning and trusting science to someone looking for good answers to these simple questions:

1. How did the universe come into being?
2. How did consciousness arise, and what is the mechanism for it?
3. Given the clear evidence for creation…
   a. What is the nature of the creator, or as seems equally evident, the creators?
   b. What are the purposes of creation?

After looking for answers to these for decades, studying many and rejecting most, I finally found an idea-set that makes sense. Do I believe it? No. That could happen if the ideas are ever subjected to verification and validated, by the standards of scientific experimentation, but not in my lifetime.

A personal thought, me to you. I had to leave the Church to be true to myself, but you do not. You have a set of beliefs that work for you, so why question them? Given the pain and disruption of life that my own inquiries have brought me, I am loathe to invite any good-hearted person into even a remotely similar experience, and reluctant to assist you in that direction by answering your questions. You belong to a good, well-intentioned religion which, in its own way, is seeking truth. If it can continue to exist, and can ordain a few more physicists, it will find that truth. In the meantime, so what?

After all my studies and searches, I still believe that in the context of the human portion of our lives, our personal life-choices are more important to our personal futures than all the metaphysical truth in the universe. IMO, anyone who adopts “Love4All” as a handle and writes effectively from that position has already learned how to be a good human being. I was on that path back when I was a young Catholic, before I went searching for a better reality model. Now, I can count my friends on the same foot that has a mangled toe. I can make a good case for the proposition, Understanding is the Booby Prize."

There is an old, but trustworthy engineering rule worth your consideration: If it works, don’t fix it.

I post alternative ideas only in hopes of engaging the minds of those who are seriously questioning their religious beliefs, and are headed down the path toward atheistic scientism. That is a dreadful path. My searches took me down it briefly, until its failings became as apparent as the rigid dogmatism of its defenders. Deflecting individuals from that path seems the best work that I can do.

(Continued…)

 

[Foofaraw]

Original quote above…

Reply 2 of 2.

You wrote: “It is perhaps, that some hold that truth is not knowable to us quite as deeply as I hold that it is knowable to us. Thus, some seem to hold that there is room for improvisation on the truth, according, again, to what we might prefer as opposed to the simple acceptance of what is.” I know many examples of the kind of people you describe, and am not one of them. One of the few things I’m dogmatic about is that you cannot improvise truth. I believe that attempts to improvise an idea are proofs of the idea’s falsehood.

Engineers improvise on the truth as a regular way of working, because we learn that no matter what theory predicts, real machines, and especially real electronic devices, rarely actually work exactly according to theory. They all need a bit of tweaking. Words like “kludge” and “fudge factor” are common engineering terms.

Theoretical science is supposed to be above that sort of thing, and once actually strove to meet that ideal. However, modern science is much ado about “modeling,” meaning software-implemented mathematical allgorithms that show how a real physical system would work, if we had a real physical system to actually experiment with. Science is full of kludges and poor theories which are accepted with dogmatic fervor, even in the face of contrary evidence. Big Bang theory and Darwinism are my favorite examples. I can offer specifics as needed.

Religions in general are the most egregious “improvisors” of truth, IMO. From long practice they are such masters of it that some even have designated improvisors, e.g. apologists. These are the guys who explain human free will in the context of an omniscient entity who already knows exactly what they are going to do with that alleged “free will,” albeit not to everyone’s satisfaction.

I am dogmatic about logic, and in my mind it is closely associated with truth. Logical syllogisms are always true. Logic is the tool that men have used to wrest hidden truth from commonly observed data (Einstein’s famous equation is a perfect example.)

Your definition of God requires that He be omnipotent and omniscient, and the creator of all things other than himself. My definition is that God is a conscious but logic-limited entity, or group thereof. And this gives us a segue into your final request for contradictions.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, which is regarded by physics as a fundamental principle, is that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Prior to Einstein, the principle included matter as well as energy.) Energy, according to physics, is the “stuff” or substance from which everything in the universe is composed.

This principle contradicts the belief that God created all things, and can do all things. The principle does not have an (except God) exclusion. I’ve heard arguments that when God created the universe, he created energy with the First Law’s proviso. However, if God created something, why should He be unable to destroy it? And if He cannot destroy energy, then He is not omnipotent.

That contradiction is between God and physics. The only effective contrary argument is that we have managed to get what is probably the most thoroughly tested principle of physics completely wrong. Here is an internal contradiction, regarding the properties that religions have assigned to God.

If God is omniscient, meaning that He knows all things, past, present, and future (the common understanding, I believe) then he cannot have a creative thought or new idea. There are many forms of information processing that are lumped into the general category of “thought,” but the only one of them that distinguishes man from animals and computers is creative thought-- the ability to freely invent new ideas.

The omniscience property precludes God from performing a mental activity common to humans. In effect, omniscience means that the Creator cannot genuinely create! I find this a mentally distasteful proposition.

(We can certainly argue the point that animals can also come up with new ideas, manifested in changed patterns of behavior. But if you win that argument, it means that God cannot do something that animals can.)

Please note that I make these arguments not as an atheist, but as one for whom creation of the universe is an obvious reality, but who has concluded that man’s definition of the creators’ properties was not well thought out.

Finally, can we take a look at your comment, “I am familiar with a common Zeitgeist these days that says all philosophy must be based on the scientific model, where all our knowledge is conditional and subject to revision.”

I do not subscribe to that philosophy. Rupert Sheldrake, physicist, has questioned the validity of at least ten beliefs that science treats as dogma, and I agree with him more than I disagree. I’ve worked with plenty of excellent scientists and seen their rigidly dogmatic side. When that side comes out, their normal reasoning skills drop to the level of high school students.

There are some scientific principles, mostly in physics, to which I do subscribe, beginning with the Laws of Thermodynamics, But I am selective. I do not buy into illogical science, such as Big Bang theory or Darwinism, and find the notion that human consciousness is a “naturally evolved” property to be completely absurd.

I do strongly believe in the validity of common sense logic when all pertinent data is included and accounted for. I also believe that sometimes it is just fine to end a sentence with a preposition.

 

[Foofaraw]

If he exists, the classical view is that he’s a totally different substance from us, so, we can’t really say much at all.

Some people think we can assign properties to him and he actually has those properties as we understand them (All powerful, all knowing, etc).

Particularly in some strands of Jewish thought, some think we can only talk of what God is in negative terms (God is not a chair, God is not wholly evil, etc).

Others yet again think we can’t say anything that actually corresponds to God’s true nature. Kant made this distinction. We can never see or understand things as they actually are. For example, a colour-blind friend and I are looking at the very same painting and yet we see very different things. Our knowledge and reality of the painting is coloured by our senses, thinking and interpretation, it is not how the painting actually is. So, the distinction is between things as we perceive them (phenomena) and things as they actually are (noumena). We can apply this to God as well.

Finally, some people think there is a problem with assigning properties to God. It’s more of a medieval/scholastic idea though. If something has constituent parts or properties, that thing is dependent on its parts or properties, moreso, it is dependent on them to be what it is. If God has the property of perfection, God is dependent on perfection to be God. This clashed with their view of God as an absolutely independent being. This has several side-effects as well though, some can be quite unpleasant which is why i suspect it isn’t a popular idea anymore.

I wish to quibble with your first two sentences.

The properties that are now generally thought to describe God were devised centuries ago by men who did not know physics. They had studied Aristotelian physics, which, except for geometric principles, is incorrect. They believed, for example, that heavy objects must fall faster than lighter ones, an illogical and easily disprovable notion. They subscribed to the egocentric belief that the solar system and entire universe revolved around the earth. Knowing less about the nature of the universe than a modern well-educated 8th grader, they were poorly qualified to devise a creator-concept that fit well with reality.

Just because a job has been poorly done does not mean that it cannot be re-done and improved. What if we took our current scientifically obtained evidence about the nature of the universe into full account, and devised a creator-concept that is consistent with that evidence? Even better, find a concept that logically leads to the existence of our universe.

 

[Love4All]

Love4–

Let me first share some thoughts about personal attitudes toward the nature and identification of truth. The thoughts/feelings you’ve expressed above mirror my own from a few decades back, before mine changed-- the most difficult change I’ve ever made. Back then, had anyone proposed ideas like those I’ve put forth here, I would have vehemently denied their potential reality. Thought, conversation, and experience have changed me from a dogmatic Catholic in the process of learning and trusting science to someone looking for good answers to these simple questions:

1. How did the universe come into being?
2. How did consciousness arise, and what is the mechanism for it?
3. Given the clear evidence for creation…
   a. What is the nature of the creator, or as seems equally evident, the creators?
   b. What are the purposes of creation?

After looking for answers to these for decades, studying many and rejecting most, I finally found an idea-set that makes sense. Do I believe it? No. That could happen if the ideas are ever subjected to verification and validated, by the standards of scientific experimentation, but not in my lifetime.

A personal thought, me to you. I had to leave the Church to be true to myself, but you do not. You have a set of beliefs that work for you, so why question them? Given the pain and disruption of life that my own inquiries have brought me, I am loathe to invite any good-hearted person into even a remotely similar experience, and reluctant to assist you in that direction by answering your questions. You belong to a good, well-intentioned religion which, in its own way, is seeking truth. If it can continue to exist, and can ordain a few more physicists, it will find that truth. In the meantime, so what?

After all my studies and searches, I still believe that in the context of the human portion of our lives, our personal life-choices are more important to our personal futures than all the metaphysical truth in the universe. IMO, anyone who adopts “Love4All” as a handle and writes effectively from that position has already learned how to be a good human being. I was on that path back when I was a young Catholic, before I went searching for a better reality model. Now, I can count my friends on the same foot that has a mangled toe. I can make a good case for the proposition, Understanding is the Booby Prize."

There is an old, but trustworthy engineering rule worth your consideration: If it works, don’t fix it.

I post alternative ideas only in hopes of engaging the minds of those who are seriously questioning their religious beliefs, and are headed down the path toward atheistic scientism. That is a dreadful path. My searches took me down it briefly, until its failings became as apparent as the rigid dogmatism of its defenders. Deflecting individuals from that path seems the best work that I can do.

(Continued…)

Aw, it’s almost cute, how protective you are about my delicate beliefs.

I’m a big boy. I can handle myself. Bring it on!

Above, you gave a list of questions, and at least one, you answered, which makes me wonder why you included it as a question. To wit,

1. How did the universe come into being?
2. How did consciousness arise, and what is the mechanism for it?
3. Given the clear evidence for creation…
   a. What is the nature of the creator, or as seems equally evident, the creators?
   b. What are the purposes of creation?

Answers: 1. God created it from nothing. 2. Consciousness is a property of a sentient being, and God created sentient beings. There is no “mechanism” for consciousness. It is not a mechanical phenomenon. 3.a. The Nature of the Creator is Omnipotent, Infinite Love. 3.b. The purpose of Creation is the same — Love.

You answered, or implied the answer, to 1, in 3. If you say there is “clear evidence for creation,” then you admit that God is the Creator. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your implication.

Anyway, it is likely you could have anticipated my answers to those questions by simply observing what I have listed as my religion, or from my handle. I do believe in Love. Love is more important than either philosophy or God, if that were possible — if it were somehow the case that Wisdom and God were not who they are, the Children of Love, and Love. Philosophy literally translated is the love of wisdom. God’s Wisdom is in the world now, and we may profitably learn more than we ever dreamed possible, by pursuing it.

 

[Love4All]

O.K., there’s a lot here, this is going to take some time. I guess I should make coffee.

Reply 2 of 2.

You wrote: “It is perhaps, that some hold that truth is not knowable to us quite as deeply as I hold that it is knowable to us. Thus, some seem to hold that there is room for improvisation on the truth, according, again, to what we might prefer as opposed to the simple acceptance of what is.” I know many examples of the kind of people you describe, and am not one of them.

That’s good. I intend to hold you to that!

One of the few things I’m dogmatic about is that you cannot improvise truth. I believe that attempts to improvise an idea are proofs of the idea’s falsehood.

If it don’t work right, toss it?

You may be on to something there, but I’m not willing to commit to anything like that until I see more evidence. Like anything, ideas can sometimes be repaired if they aren’t doing exactly what we’d like. Ideas are not truth per se, but rather ways of explaining to ourselves what it is we experience.

Not saying that no ideas are true, but, an idea I’ve encountered in philosophy is that concepts are intended to do work, and if a concept can be made to do the work for which it is intended with a little tweaking, I’m not above getting out the repair kit.

Engineers improvise on the truth as a regular way of working, because we learn that no matter what theory predicts, real machines, and especially real electronic devices, rarely actually work exactly according to theory. They all need a bit of tweaking. Words like “kludge” and “fudge factor” are common engineering terms.

Exactly. And I’m not convinced that in general, our philosophical concepts fare much better. I think there is some room for an engineering paradigm in philosophy.

Theoretical science is supposed to be above that sort of thing, and once actually strove to meet that ideal. However, modern science is much ado about “modeling,” meaning software-implemented mathematical allgorithms that show how a real physical system would work, if we had a real physical system to actually experiment with. Science is full of kludges and poor theories which are accepted with dogmatic fervor, even in the face of contrary evidence. Big Bang theory and Darwinism are my favorite examples. I can offer specifics as needed.

I am a bit puzzled, I’ll admit, but I don’t have a specific question at the moment.

Religions in general are the most egregious “improvisors” of truth, IMO.

That sounds awfully cynical. But I’ll grant you that it may be the case for “religions in general.” However, the Theosophical Society has a saying, “There is no religion higher than Truth.” And I have a saying as well: There is no Truth beyond Love.

It seems I keep mentioning this, but, Baha’u’llah taught that humanity is One, religion is One, God is One. That contradicts appearances, and yet, his words have survived long enough to reach me. So there must be some meaning in them that appealed to someone, despite the contradiction of appearances.

My religion is Love. Do you believe in Love?

 

[Love4All]

From long practice they are such masters of it that some even have designated improvisors, e.g. apologists. These are the guys who explain human free will in the context of an omniscient entity who already knows exactly what they are going to do with that alleged “free will,” albeit not to everyone’s satisfaction.

I think that question is fully in the realm of philosophy, and has been addressed already, though as you point out, some remain unsatisfied with the dictate of logic. Here is a perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate that you are not among that set. Remember, you claimed, above, to be not an improviser on truth. You claimed that you seek to accept the truth as it is, rather than as you’d prefer it to be. Here is your opportunity to make good on that claim.

There is no contradiction whatsoever between an omniscient God and human free will. The notion that there is is based on a fallacy. Shall I continue?

I am dogmatic about logic, and in my mind it is closely associated with truth.

Absolutely!

I have a friend who says often, “perfect logic comes from perfect Love.”

Logical syllogisms are always true.

Not unqualifiedly so. A valid syllogism with all true premises leads to a true conclusion, that much I grant you. Syllogistic form is no guarantee of soundness. Perhaps you know this, but it isn’t what you stated.

Logic is the tool that men have used to wrest hidden truth from commonly observed data (Einstein’s famous equation is a perfect example.)

Are you aware that E=mc² is Vedic truth?

The veil of prakriti has three forms, and the forms are convertible one to another.

Your definition of God requires that He be omnipotent and omniscient, and the creator of all things other than himself. My definition is that God is a conscious but logic-limited entity, or group thereof. And this gives us a segue into your final request for contradictions.

So far, I see no contradiction. Logic is not a limitation on God, logic is what it is, the rule set of clear thought.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, which is regarded by physics as a fundamental principle, is that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Prior to Einstein, the principle included matter as well as energy.) Energy, according to physics, is the “stuff” or substance from which everything in the universe is composed.

This principle contradicts the belief that God created all things, and can do all things. The principle does not have an (except God) exclusion. I’ve heard arguments that when God created the universe, he created energy with the First Law’s proviso. However, if God created something, why should He be unable to destroy it? And if He cannot destroy energy, then He is not omnipotent.

You will need to support better the notion that God can’t destroy created energy. My question is, why would He? Didn’t He create it in the first place?

Anyway, the First Law of Thermodynamics is based on experimentation and observation. We have never seen energy created or destroyed, and we are unaware of any means by which we might be able to do so. That’s about as far as it goes, ontologically speaking. You are looking at it like a codified rule of behavior for things, and that’s not what it is. We are unable to pass laws binding on reality. Reality, rather, dictates what scientific laws we will derive from our observations. You say that, “the principle does not have an (except God) exclusion.” As if to say, that way back when when the Intergalactic Council passed the First Law of Thermodynamics, they didn’t write in it that God is allowed to create, and therefore, God isn’t allowed to create. He will get in big trouble if He does!

You can see how silly it sounds when I caricature it like that, but the silliness is really built in to the idea. God is a priori the First Principle, everything else derives from Him. It is absurd to posit that some rule of the universe, some law of science, has a limiting power over God.

You yourself posited the absurdity that a miracle called the Big Bang magically allowed the universe to create itself from nothing. My beliefs are far more conservative than that. I do not posit eternal matter, I posit an eternal God, who created matter with an Act of His Will. The Conservation of Energy applies to our science and our technology. It is evidently a principle God built into the universe, for our benefit. It is in no way a limitation on God, who has no limitations.

Remember that God changed water into wine. That is historical fact. Many do not accept it, because it contradicts their experience, but to hold that that which one has never experienced is thereby impossible is unspeakably naive. It is known as a Black Swan Fallacy.

conservapedia.com/Black-swan_fallacy

 

[Love4All]

That contradiction is between God and physics.

No, the contradiction is between God’s revelation and an assumption based on an interpretation of observations, which assumption, in turn, is based on the commission of a Black Swan Fallacy.

The only effective contrary argument is that we have managed to get what is probably the most thoroughly tested principle of physics completely wrong.

Not in the least. The principle is correct, and useful to us. God created it that way, as part of perfect logic coming from perfect Love. It is simply not a limitation on God, who created everything from nothing, including energy. (Which is a big part of “everything.”)

Just because God can and did create energy from nothing, does not mean either that we can do the same, nor that we can base any sound science on such eventuality. Our science has to be based on ORDINARY occurrences, and God’s ordinary mode of operation is through Nature. Miracles, by contrast, are EXTRAORDINARY occurrences. Like, changing water to wine, or raising Lazarus from the dead. There is no scientific explanation for a miracle under the physical sciences, and there is no way to observe a miracle taking place.

Changing water to wine is an example of a suspension of the First Law of Thermodynamics, as is multiplying loaves and fishes. Since miracles are extraordinary, there is no danger that our science regarding what is ordinary is “wrong.” It still applies to what is ordinary, just not to what is extraordinary. Both ordinary and extraordinary events are part of God’s Will.

Here is an internal contradiction, regarding the properties that religions have assigned to God.

Afraid not. For one thing, an internal contradiction wouldn’t involve anything external to God, and physics is external to God. And, as pointed out, there is actually no contradiction. The appearance of a contradiction arose from an improper treatment of the laws of physics, exalting them to binding decrees (issued, by whom? I wonder) rather than what they are, namely generalizations of observations.

If God is omniscient, meaning that He knows all things, past, present, and future (the common understanding, I believe) then he cannot have a creative thought or new idea.

You are contriving an equivalence between creativity and novelty.

There are many forms of information processing that are lumped into the general category of “thought,” but the only one of them that distinguishes man from animals and computers is creative thought-- the ability to freely invent new ideas.

I’m not yet convinced that that is the only one, but it may be one, or it may not be. Recall the phrase, from Scripture, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Human beings in general cannot create. To create means to bring into existence from nothing, and human beings never do that. Rather, human beings use pre-existing material and put it together in useful ways. Thus, if a human being carves a walking stick from a branch, it would be incorrect to say he created the walking stick. Rather, he formed it out of the branch.

Now, in regard to our ideas, what would make you think that they are very much different? We cannot produce a new thought from nothing. We can only re-arrange existing thoughts into useful combinations. The elements of our thought, like the elements of the world, already exist. So in what sense can any of our thoughts be labeled, “new?”

We are very much part of the chain of cause and effect. If we have free will, it is in our ability to decide between path A or path B, and not, rather, to invent new paths, nor to initiate any new stream beyond what our minds present to us.

God, by contrast to us, can produce new things. They are new in the meaningful sense that never before did there exist anything like them. That God knew of them from eternity is part of God’s omniscience, but to assert that omniscience is a limitation is just as absurd as asserting that physics is a limitation, or that logic is a limitation.

What will you come up with next? Are you going to assert that God can’t create a boulder so large that God can’t move it?

What about, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” That one is always a favorite.

 

[Love4All]

The omniscience property precludes God from performing a mental activity common to humans.

Humans do many things that God “can’t” do. Humans lie, humans cheat, humans steal. God can’t do any of those things. Humans can fail, in oh so many ways. God can’t. Humans can experience what it is like to sin and offend God. God can’t.

But all these things are limitations on humans, not on God. Lying is not a power, lying is a disdain for Truth. God is incapable of having any limitations. That is not a limitation!

In effect, omniscience means that the Creator cannot genuinely create! I find this a mentally distasteful proposition.

So do I, but in contrast to what you’ve apparently done, I resolve it by finding the flaw in it, rather than blindly accepting my own thought as if it were truth and not questioning it.

To genuinely create means exactly this: to bring something into existence from nothing. Omniscient knowledge of exactly what one is going to create does not prevent one from creating, so I don’t understand how you are deriving that “omniscience means that the Creator cannot genuinely create.” Are things blocked from existing because known by God?

(We can certainly argue the point that animals can also come up with new ideas, manifested in changed patterns of behavior. But if you win that argument, it means that God cannot do something that animals can.)

Please note that I make these arguments not as an atheist, but as one for whom creation of the universe is an obvious reality, but who has concluded that man’s definition of the creators’ properties was not well thought out.

Here is your arrogance of human pride. You really hold that Catholic Doctrine is a philosophical construct, a set of human ideas, that can then be improved or perfected by human ingenuity. That is part of the heresy called Modernism, condemned by Saint Pius X. You haven’t come up with anything new, even in this. This is not some revolution of thought you are going to begin. This has already been advanced, in previous centuries. It isn’t the truth. You might want to read up on it.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Catholic Doctrine is not a philosophical construct, it is God’s revelation of Himself. It is not liable to error.

But Alas! I am, much to my chagrin, aware that you used to believe that and then abandoned it for “something better.” You fell prey to human opinion, namely your own, and exalted your opinion above God. Once you do that, what more can be done for you? You’re pretty much on your own, out on a raft in the ocean, at the mercy of the winds and the tides. Better hope there isn’t a storm coming!

If you want to get back to Truth and Reality, begin here: God is Love. Do you believe in Love, or not?

Finally, can we take a look at your comment, “I am familiar with a common Zeitgeist these days that says all philosophy must be based on the scientific model, where all our knowledge is conditional and subject to revision.”

I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

Makes you sound almost Catholic.

Rupert Sheldrake, physicist, has questioned the validity of at least ten beliefs that science treats as dogma, and I agree with him more than I disagree. I’ve worked with plenty of excellent scientists and seen their rigidly dogmatic side. When that side comes out, their normal reasoning skills drop to the level of high school students.

There are some scientific principles, mostly in physics, to which I do subscribe, beginning with the Laws of Thermodynamics, But I am selective. I do not buy into illogical science, such as Big Bang theory or Darwinism, and find the notion that human consciousness is a “naturally evolved” property to be completely absurd.

Your belief system seems a bit confusing at this point.

But why would you exalt an observational generalization to the status of a metaphysical dogma?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are not valid. I am simply saying that their validity is part of science, and useful to us as such. They are not theological principles, and it is passing strange to see them advanced by you as such.

I do strongly believe in the validity of common sense logic when all pertinent data is included and accounted for. I also believe that sometimes it is just fine to end a sentence with a preposition.

I’ll try to refrain from Grammar Fascism.

 

[da_nolo]

Is god pure intelligence will, mind, feeling or what? Does he have a soul and if so anything like ours? Any philosophers welcome or course from the church would be good but I’m willing to seek all for this answer.

I don’t remember where in the Bible this is, but God speaks to Abraham, and gives him God’s Name. the meaning behind this name (or translation) works perfectly to Whom or What God is. in my mind at least.

“I AM”

I think its in Genesis, but i had troubles locating it.

 

[D_Martin]

Is god pure intelligence will, mind, feeling or what? Does he have a soul and if so anything like ours? Any philosophers welcome or course from the church would be good but I’m willing to seek all for this answer.

Jesus says: Jn:4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So maybe you should look into what spirit is, and what is the Holy Spirit, and Spirit of Truth. And the distinction between spirits, and what is of God and what is not. And go from there.

 

[Foofaraw]

If it don’t work right, toss it?

That is a tad more black and white than I intended. It depends upon the scale and scope of the project. We would not have much of a space program if we’d abandoned it when the first rocket blew up on the pad, but we did scrap that particular line of rockets. Large and complex computer programs never work right, first try. But I’ve noticed that the difference between a really good engineer and a hack is that the good ones either abandon bad designs quickly, or always come up with solid designs.

You may be on to something there, but I’m not willing to commit to anything like that until I see more evidence. Like anything, ideas can sometimes be repaired if they aren’t doing exactly what we’d like. Ideas are not truth per se, but rather ways of explaining to ourselves what it is we experience.

Not saying that no ideas are true, but, an idea I’ve encountered in philosophy is that concepts are intended to do work, and if a concept can be made to do the work for which it is intended with a little tweaking, I’m not above getting out the repair kit.

I would do the same but only if I saw some core value in the concept. I like the idea that concepts are intended to do work, if by work is meant, answer a question which, if answered correctly, would change the thoughts and actions of those who discover it, for the better. In engineering, a more limited expectation of “concept” is used, in that it should lead to the completion of a job or solution to a problem.

Your definition of “ideas” works well for me. I seem to use them as you described, and as steps leading, ideally, in the direction of a powerful concept or set of concepts that may be well enough regarded by some to be called “truth,”

Exactly. And I’m not convinced that in general, our philosophical concepts fare much better. I think there is some room for an engineering paradigm in philosophy.

After studying my most recently discovered interesting philosophy book, I’m inclined to believe that a good philosophy must be engineered.

That sounds awfully cynical. But I’ll grant you that it may be the case for “religions in general.” However, the Theosophical Society has a saying, “There is no religion higher than Truth.” And I have a saying as well: There is no Truth beyond Love.

I can understand why you would find my observations cynical, from your perspective of belief. Yet, you seem to be sufficiently well studied to accept that my observations are philosophically legitimate.

It seems I keep mentioning this, but, Baha’u’llah taught that humanity is One, religion is One, God is One. That contradicts appearances, and yet, his words have survived long enough to reach me. So there must be some meaning in them that appealed to someone, despite the contradiction of appearances.

My religion is Love. Do you believe in Love?

Sure. I do not set much personal store in love, but notice that it seems to motivate some people, often for the better. But to engage a discussion of love I’d want to know which of the approximately 20 English-language definitions of love you are asking about.

If we ever choose to nail this question down you will probably find my definitions of love too cynical for your taste. I treat love as an emotion, and do not trust emotions. I see that in many people (myself once included) love is simply an emotional fixation derived from the need to feel admired. I have loved, but fancy that I am now wise enough not to let that happen again.

I would never make a statement like yours, that love is your religion. The truth is that I have no idea what that means to you, although it is clearly something important and powerful. But then, I would never again adopt a religion or the beliefs thereof, except for certain moral and philosophical principles of the sort that can also be found in a sound philosophy.

Please be mindful that I am in no way disparaging of your feelings. In a way, something about them feels admirable. I cannot comment competently, either positively or negatively, about something that I do not understand, with human emotions at the top of that lengthy list.

Baha’u’llah taught a lot of things that appeal to many people. I studied his ideas many years ago, and originally thought rather highly of them. But IMO the religion he left behind is barely a step removed from Islam, thanks to its overweening focus upon leader-worship. Baha’u’llah was just a man. Men invent things to say that some people want to hear and believe, then claim them to be inspired by God himself. I am more inclined to believe the words of someone when they are so painfully truthful that my brain immediately tries to reject them. Even better if the person proposing the idea admits making them up himself, or cribbing them from someone else who admits the same.

My current favorite philosophy is derived from an even more interesting principle, that the only God-given truth available to us lies in the physical universe itself— in the structure of matter, the laws of physics, the awesome engineering in microbiology, and the diverse beauty in nature. About the only time I feel anything akin to love is when I look through a telescope or microscope, or just up at the galaxy in midsummer, or take a close look at a flower. Luckily the feeling passes and I can get back to work.

 

[Foofaraw]

I think that question is fully in the realm of philosophy, and has been addressed already, though as you point out, some remain unsatisfied with the dictate of logic. Here is a perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate that you are not among that set. Remember, you claimed, above, to be not an improviser on truth. You claimed that you seek to accept the truth as it is, rather than as you’d prefer it to be. Here is your opportunity to make good on that claim.

There is no contradiction whatsoever between an omniscient God and human free will. The notion that there is is based on a fallacy. Shall I continue?

I do not think that doing so would be helpful to either of us. I’ve been there and done that. Thank you for the offer, nonetheless.

Absolutely!

I have a friend who says often, “perfect logic comes from perfect Love.”

If we ever find someone capable of manifesting perfect love, we can test his theory.

Not unqualifiedly so. A valid syllogism with all true premises leads to a true conclusion, that much I grant you. Syllogistic form is no guarantee of soundness. Perhaps you know this, but it isn’t what you stated.

You are right. Thank you for the correction.

Are you aware that E=mc² is Vedic truth?

The veil of prakriti has three forms, and the forms are convertible one to another.

I’d come across that claim before. My current attitude toward it is the same as then: So what? I have no idea what “veil of parkriti” means, or how it might apply to Einstein’s result. I doubt very much that the Indians or Pakistani’s did either, since they learned how to build nuclear weapons from us, not from their scriptures.

So far, I see no contradiction. Logic is not a limitation on God, logic is what it is, the rule set of clear thought.

I disagree, in a minor sense. I find that logic that is dependent on a “rule set” is generally worthless. Mathematical logic works nicely when competently applied, but is often added after the fact. For example, according to textbooks and professorial lore, James Maxwell derived his four equations of electrodynamics mathematically, using simple laws of electrical and magnetic action, The truth is that he woke up with the equations in his mind, and subsequently wrapped them in a formal derivation. In the sixties a bright grad student examined Maxwell’s derivation and found that it contained several errors that conveniently cancelled one another out so as to yield a valid result.

Personally, I use common sense logic mostly to catch errors in thought and detect falsehoods common to human relationships and political statements, thereby winning many friends.

You will need to support better the notion that God can’t destroy created energy. My question is, why would He? Didn’t He create it in the first place?

Anyway, the First Law of Thermodynamics is based on experimentation and observation. We have never seen energy created or destroyed, and we are unaware of any means by which we might be able to do so. That’s about as far as it goes, ontologically speaking. You are looking at it like a codified rule of behavior for things, and that’s not what it is. We are unable to pass laws binding on reality. Reality, rather, dictates what scientific laws we will derive from our observations. You say that, “the principle does not have an (except God) exclusion.” As if to say, that way back when when the Intergalactic Council passed the First Law of Thermodynamics, they didn’t write in it that God is allowed to create, and therefore, God isn’t allowed to create. He will get in big trouble if He does!

You can see how silly it sounds when I caricature it like that, but the silliness is really built in to the idea. God is a priori the First Principle, everything else derives from Him. It is absurd to posit that some rule of the universe, some law of science, has a limiting power over God.

You yourself posited the absurdity that a miracle called the Big Bang magically allowed the universe to create itself from nothing. My beliefs are far more conservative than that. I do not posit eternal matter, I posit an eternal God, who created matter with an Act of His Will. The Conservation of Energy applies to our science and our technology. It is evidently a principle God built into the universe, for our benefit. It is in no way a limitation on God, who has no limitations.

Remember that God changed water into wine. That is historical fact. Many do not accept it, because it contradicts their experience, but to hold that that which one has never experienced is thereby impossible is unspeakably naive. It is known as a Black Swan Fallacy.

conservapedia.com/Black-swan_fallacy

I wish to correct your misstatement that I posited the Big Bang, other than as an example of an absurd belief. Other than that, I must decline to engage your arguments. They all posit your religious beliefs as truth, and while that may be true, I found good reasons to doubt them years ago and have since found non-religious ideas which, to me, make better sense.

I entered this thread to address the OP, which seemed an honest question, and to offer an answer to it from my alternative-idea base, on the possibility that it might be useful to a few. I have no interest in convincing you or other devout Catholics that the ideas I propose are valid. You already have a belief system that works for you.

 

[Foofaraw]

No, the contradiction is between God’s revelation and an assumption based on an interpretation of observations, which assumption, in turn, is based on the commission of a Black Swan Fallacy.

Not in the least. The principle is correct, and useful to us. God created it that way, as part of perfect logic coming from perfect Love. It is simply not a limitation on God, who created everything from nothing, including energy. (Which is a big part of “everything.”)

Just because God can and did create energy from nothing, does not mean either that we can do the same, nor that we can base any sound science on such eventuality. Our science has to be based on ORDINARY occurrences, and God’s ordinary mode of operation is through Nature. Miracles, by contrast, are EXTRAORDINARY occurrences. Like, changing water to wine, or raising Lazarus from the dead. There is no scientific explanation for a miracle under the physical sciences, and there is no way to observe a miracle taking place.

Changing water to wine is an example of a suspension of the First Law of Thermodynamics, as is multiplying loaves and fishes. Since miracles are extraordinary, there is no danger that our science regarding what is ordinary is “wrong.” It still applies to what is ordinary, just not to what is extraordinary. Both ordinary and extraordinary events are part of God’s Will.

Afraid not. For one thing, an internal contradiction wouldn’t involve anything external to God, and physics is external to God. And, as pointed out, there is actually no contradiction. The appearance of a contradiction arose from an improper treatment of the laws of physics, exalting them to binding decrees (issued, by whom? I wonder) rather than what they are, namely generalizations of observations.

You are contriving an equivalence between creativity and novelty.

I’m not yet convinced that that is the only one, but it may be one, or it may not be. Recall the phrase, from Scripture, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Human beings in general cannot create. To create means to bring into existence from nothing, and human beings never do that. Rather, human beings use pre-existing material and put it together in useful ways. Thus, if a human being carves a walking stick from a branch, it would be incorrect to say he created the walking stick. Rather, he formed it out of the branch.

Now, in regard to our ideas, what would make you think that they are very much different? We cannot produce a new thought from nothing. We can only re-arrange existing thoughts into useful combinations. The elements of our thought, like the elements of the world, already exist. So in what sense can any of our thoughts be labeled, “new?”

We are very much part of the chain of cause and effect. If we have free will, it is in our ability to decide between path A or path B, and not, rather, to invent new paths, nor to initiate any new stream beyond what our minds present to us.

God, by contrast to us, can produce new things. They are new in the meaningful sense that never before did there exist anything like them. That God knew of them from eternity is part of God’s omniscience, but to assert that omniscience is a limitation is just as absurd as asserting that physics is a limitation, or that logic is a limitation.

What will you come up with next? Are you going to assert that God can’t create a boulder so large that God can’t move it?

What about, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” That one is always a favorite.

While I’m slightly tempted to address you last and “favorite” question, this is the wrong place for it. The theory I’ve adopted (at least until I find a better one) explains the origin of God uniquely, logically, and effectively, but so what? You have a fixed belief system that precludes your ability to engage a complex alternative theory, as it should. That statement is not meant to be in any way disparaging-- it is a reflection of how the human mind works. My theory even explains why the mind works that way, but again, so what? Properly applied, the principle instructs one to never attempt an argument with someone whose fundamental beliefs operate at the level of dogma. I would no sooner try to explain these ideas to you (who has no need or use for them) than I would to a Catholic theologian (tried it) or to Richard Dawkins (did not try it). My position on this is impersonal but adamant.

I do enjoy a good discussion and happily engage those with conflicting opinions when both of us are using our current best understanding to address questions that neither of us have been able to answer. That is the kind of conversation I will happily engage here, or anywhere.

 

[Foofaraw]

Humans do many things that God “can’t” do. Humans lie, humans cheat, humans steal. God can’t do any of those things. Humans can fail, in oh so many ways. God can’t. Humans can experience what it is like to sin and offend God. God can’t.

But all these things are limitations on humans, not on God. Lying is not a power, lying is a disdain for Truth. God is incapable of having any limitations. That is not a limitation!

So do I, but in contrast to what you’ve apparently done, I resolve it by finding the flaw in it, rather than blindly accepting my own thought as if it were truth and not questioning it.

To genuinely create means exactly this: to bring something into existence from nothing. Omniscient knowledge of exactly what one is going to create does not prevent one from creating, so I don’t understand how you are deriving that “omniscience means that the Creator cannot genuinely create.” Are things blocked from existing because known by God?

Here is your arrogance of human pride. You really hold that Catholic Doctrine is a philosophical construct, a set of human ideas, that can then be improved or perfected by human ingenuity. That is part of the heresy called Modernism, condemned by Saint Pius X. You haven’t come up with anything new, even in this. This is not some revolution of thought you are going to begin. This has already been advanced, in previous centuries. It isn’t the truth. You might want to read up on it.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Catholic Doctrine is not a philosophical construct, it is God’s revelation of Himself. It is not liable to error.

But Alas! I am, much to my chagrin, aware that you used to believe that and then abandoned it for “something better.” You fell prey to human opinion, namely your own, and exalted your opinion above God. Once you do that, what more can be done for you? You’re pretty much on your own, out on a raft in the ocean, at the mercy of the winds and the tides. Better hope there isn’t a storm coming!

If you want to get back to Truth and Reality, begin here: God is Love. Do you believe in Love, or not?

Makes you sound almost Catholic.

Your belief system seems a bit confusing at this point.

But why would you exalt an observational generalization to the status of a metaphysical dogma?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the Laws of Thermodynamics are not valid. I am simply saying that their validity is part of science, and useful to us as such. They are not theological principles, and it is passing strange to see them advanced by you as such.

I’ll try to refrain from Grammar Fascism.

Our differences in perspective are exemplified in your statement, "*Catholic Doctrine is not a philosophical construct, it is God’s revelation of Himself. It is not liable to error. *. I once believed that, as you do now. My current position is simply stated: Who says so?

What I know for certain about all sacred scripture is that it all begins as the words or writings of men. Sometimes these men claim that God revealed the information to them. Other times their followers will make that same claim in their behalf. Bottom line, it is only men who declare scripture to be the revealed word of God, and men who interpret these words (often divergently from other men).

I have adopted the simple and to me, obvious truth from my favorite philosophy book. The only “scripture” certain to be the work of the Creator, and only the Creator, is the physical universe in all aspects.

Obviously, you and I base our working beliefs upon entirely different fundamental beliefs. We could never agree upon a single working belief or principle without first resolving the fundamentals. Neither of us will change our fundamental beliefs, so must let them be, and move on to more constructive conversations with parallel-minded others.

 

[yppop]

While I’m slightly tempted to address you last and “favorite” question, this is the wrong place for it. The theory I’ve adopted (at least until I find a better one) explains the origin of God uniquely, logically, and effectively, but so what? You have a fixed belief system that precludes your ability to engage a complex alternative theory, as it should. That statement is not meant to be in any way disparaging-- it is a reflection of how the human mind works. My theory even explains why the mind works that way, but again, so what? Properly applied, the principle instructs one to never attempt an argument with someone whose fundamental beliefs operate at the level of dogma. I would no sooner try to explain these ideas to you (who has no need or use for them) than I would to a Catholic theologian (tried it) or to Richard Dawkins (did not try it). My position on this is impersonal but adamant.

I do enjoy a good discussion and happily engage those with conflicting opinions when both of us are using our current best understanding to address questions that neither of us have been able to answer. That is the kind of conversation I will happily engage here, or anywhere.

Foofaraway,
I have some experience in critiquing unusual theories. I once critiqued a very unusual theory for a respondent to this forum named Greylorn (currently banned, I think) and am always interested in new ideas. Perhaps you could write a few lines outlining the basic premises of your theory that explains how the mind works. The Greylorn theory was based on something called a beon.
Happy Easter
Yppop

 

[Foofaraw]

Foofaraway,
I have some experience in critiquing unusual theories. I once critiqued a very unusual theory for a respondent to this forum named Greylorn (currently banned, I think) and am always interested in new ideas. Perhaps you could write a few lines outlining the basic premises of your theory that explains how the mind works. The Greylorn theory was based on something called a beon.
Happy Easter
Yppop

The theory I’ve adopted is from the book, Digital Universe, Analog Soul written by Greylorn Ell. In fact, I joined this forum because I was looking for things he might have written elsewhere in hopes of learning more about his ideas. He is clearly the same Greylon who had posted to this forum, and is indeed banned.

If you had the opportunity to critique his ideas, it would be foolish of me to try to describe them. Beon is indeed one of his concepts, used instead of soul. But its a different concept, not just a different word for soul. How long ago did you work with him? Do you still? (This is off topic so you’d better PM or email me.)