T
tonyrey
Guest
To criticize evolution implies intellectual superiority on the part of the critic!
- Status
T
tdgesq
Guest
In Latin, the applicable part of the Nicene Creed reads “Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem . . . .” Omnipotentem is the Latin root for the English word “omnipotent.” As you know, the creed translated into English reads “we believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty . . . .” The Council of Nicaea was an ecumenical council, so what it teaches in this regard is absolutely binding on the consciences of all Catholics.
Of course what you want to know is whether God being “almighty” means that he can do anything at all - even engage in a logical inconsistency such as creating a square circle. The Church clearly teaches that not even God can engage in logical contradiction.
Let’s suppose for a moment that God could create a square in physical space and at the same time create a circle in the same physical space. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. What this would mean is that God can create something that is a square and not a square at the same time and in the same sense. It would also mean that God creates a circle and not a circle at the same time and in the same sense. It would be true that he was creating a square, yet also false that he was creating a square. It would be true that he was creating a circle, yet also false that he was creating a circle. It would be a contradiction. And most importantly, it would mean that God could create a state of affairs that is not true. He could create a state of affairs that is false.
Yet one of the attributes of God is that he is truth. The First Vatican Council teaches that:
“God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.”
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%204.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason
“we believe to be true what He has revealed,
· not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason,
· but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203%20On%20faith
These are de fide dogmatic statements of the Vatican council; the highest grade of theological certainity possible and something that all Catholics must believe.
Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas at length treats this question, and he concludes:
I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word ‘all’ when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.
newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article3 (Emphasis added).
It is not possible for God to engage in a contradiction. He is not able to engage in something that is not true, whether it be a creative act or otherwise. I hope this helps somebody out there!
G
greylorn
Guest
Yes, it does. Thank you.
However, intellectual superiority, if I had or wanted it, is irrelevant to any consideration of Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution.
All that is required to recognize that Darwinian evolution is absurd, is a short course in probability theory, a few hours checking out estimated probabilities for the evolution of various insects, dinosaurs, fish,etc, and a calculator that handles extremely large exponents. .
A little common sense, about enough to screw a bolt into a threaded hole, is enough to discern that while the evidence for biological evolution is binding, the neo-Darwinian explanations for the process are dumber than the Santa Claus myth.
A
Areopagite
Guest
I like your objections. Now, if I sound like an idiot talking about physics here, that’s only because I am.
Now, if I’m not mistaken, I* God could cause an apple to move upward, there would be no reason why he couldn’t make all of them move upward permanently*, right? And as a side note, human telekinesis, if possible, might simply utilize energy in such a way that it does not violate physical laws.
Now, with regard to chilling something lower than 0 Kelvin, to answer that question, you have to give me an idea what that would be like. From my limited knowledge, 0 Kelvin is where the molecules actually stop moving altogether. So, 0 Kelvin would be … molecules stopping even more than that? You see, I think the definition of sub-zero kelvin temperature entails a logical contradiction and therefore metaphysical contradiction, and if that is so, then it is out of the reach of God’s omnipotence, since He cannot contravene metaphysical reality. Not only would it be a physical impossibility but a metaphysical impossibility. Correct me if I’m wrong. If you can describe what 0 Kelvin would be like in a definition that does have something be and not be in the same way (principle of non-contradiction), then I’ll stand corrected.
Can God contradict the 1st Law? I would think so. The first law states that no matter/energy can ever be destroyed, right? Well, God was the one to create matter and energy, so why would He not be able to uncreate it? Right? In fact, in theology, there’s the doctrine called the doctrine of Conservation, which states that God is holding all reality in existence and if, as it were, he were to stop thinking of it, it would vanish.
In short, physical laws are laws, and laws, as Chesterton says, can be broken. Metaphysical realities are more than laws, but describe being itself, God Himself. And God cannot contradict Himself.
Does this make any sense?
T
tonyrey
Guest
I am in complete agreement with you on that score. But belief in evolution does not entail neo-Darwinism even though it does entail an element of chance. Otherwise why is there natural (physical) evil?
T
tonyrey
Guest
The most significant fact about God’s omnipotence is that He is no longer omnipotent!
By creating us with free will He has chosen to restrict His power. The world is out of His control to the exact extent that it is under our control. That is why it is in such a mess!
God’s omnipotence is also restricted in another way. As a result of creating the universe with specific physical laws He chooses to allow events to occur according to those laws and not by direct intervention. He sustains the universe in existence but He does not will each individual event. If he suspended the law of gravitation every time there was going to be an accident there would be so many exceptions that the law would cease to be a law. It would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe which allows us to lead a rational existence.
In other words a successful system entails consistency. If the system is extremely complex there will be results that are not intended or desired. If the system is extremely simple it will not produce all the results that are intended and desired. So it is physically impossible to design and create a planet such as ours with so much richness and variety and without any defects or failures. To expect perfection in a finite system is absurd. Only God is perfect in every respect…
By creating us with free will He has chosen to restrict His power. The world is out of His control to the exact extent that it is under our control. That is why it is in such a mess!
God’s omnipotence is also restricted in another way. As a result of creating the universe with specific physical laws He chooses to allow events to occur according to those laws and not by direct intervention. He sustains the universe in existence but He does not will each individual event. If he suspended the law of gravitation every time there was going to be an accident there would be so many exceptions that the law would cease to be a law. It would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe which allows us to lead a rational existence.
In other words a successful system entails consistency. If the system is extremely complex there will be results that are not intended or desired. If the system is extremely simple it will not produce all the results that are intended and desired. So it is physically impossible to design and create a planet such as ours with so much richness and variety and without any defects or failures. To expect perfection in a finite system is absurd. Only God is perfect in every respect…
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 1 of 2 to Post 23:
I appreciate your reply, and your non-pretentiousness re: physics. Your questions are ones which once troubled me. They make sense in the context of our conversation. My inability to make sense of similar concepts in the context of science led me to a different way of looking at things.
Keep your curious and open-minded attitude and I will do my best to explain what physics you need to at least consider a different perspective. You are not an idiot. An idiot would either pretend to understand some physics and get it all wrong, or would declare that the subject is irrelevant to this discussion.
(I have posted to and initiated a number of threads which attempt to elaborate on this subject. You might consider evaluating those posts, some of which are coherent.)
Scumbag politicians and philosophers love to manipulate words, and to pretend that a given word, such as “law,” has only one meaning. They neglect the many different meanings of a common word such as “law” when it suits them, and get away with it because there is no law against intellectual dishonesty.
It is unfortunate that early physicists could not have invented a better word than “law” to describe the rules by which the universe operates. These are entirely different from the arbitrary rules, also called laws, devised by men. Nevertheless, Chesterton should have known better. You surely know better than to quote him a second time.
This conversation involves both details and generalities. First, a few of the details.
(Incidentally, this conversation lacks the background to deal with your apples and entropy problem, because you don’t understand entropy, yet. Don’t feel bad about that. I did not figure it out until 3 years after Physics 301b.)
0 deg. Kelvin, or absolute zero, can be thought of in terms of molecular motion or radiation temperature. At 0 K, nothing moves and there is no radiation.
The actual temperature was deduced logically (and mathematically) from the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. This makes it a theoretical limit. Naturally, scientists have done their best to test this limit. With exotic and expensive apparatus they have brought things within a few ticks of 0 K, but as the theoretically determined law predicted, they have been unable to reach it. Moreover, every experiment which has moved things a thousandths of a degree closer to 0 K has required exponentially more energy than the previous experiment.
This means that the space below 0 K is non-existent.
Continued…
T
tjm190
Guest
No, but he can divide by 0
On a more serious note, I suspect while square circles is abit much, God could have some fun with non-Euclidian geometry.
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 2 of 2 to Post 23, a continuation of Reply 1…
Since the 3rd Law was derived from the first two, it would seem that the ability to violate those laws would imply the ability to violate the 3rd. At the crux of my theories is the opinion that the property which makes God, God, is the inherent ability to violate the 2nd law. (This is the same property which allows you to acquire consciousness.) But I do not believe that God can violate the 1st Law.
The 1st and 3rd Laws are different from the 2nd, in that they define limits. The limit set by the first law is clear and simple. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. (It can be transformed, such as into mass.) The law does not include an out. It does not say, “except by God.”
This principle is one of several which caused me to part company with the Church.
Other laws of physics, Newton’s Laws, Maxwell’s equations, etc. are merely consequences of the laws of thermodynamics, applied to a particular geometry. They are the result of God’s manipulation of energy and His application of this basic substance to arbitrary (but well considered) dynamic geometries. The Laws of Thermodynamics are in another category entirely.
Why not take the 1st Law at face value and acknowledge that God is subject to it? This means that God did not create energy.
This implies that the good old boys who got together a few thousand years ago and decided upon the properties of God might have gotten it wrong. Is that possible?
Well, let’s see. What did these guys, geniuses like Augustine and Aquinas, know about physics? They believed in Aristotelian physics, which has been proven completely wrong in all respects. What did they know about the universe? Ah, yes. We are at the center of it, living on a flat earth, nevermind the curved shadows on the moon and the phases of the moon, etc.
Bottom line is that the “great thinkers” who invented the God concept which Christians now accept as absolute truth did not know squat, and were not bright enough to pay attention to the evidence in the night sky. Given their limitations, it would have been astounding if they’d gotten the God-concept right.
Science and religion have been at opposite corners since Bruno Giordano was burnt to death for thinking. No better issue marks the demarcation line between church and science than the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
These days, various battles between science and religion are fought on the field of evolution, where creationists keep plugging and keep losing. That is because they are fighting useless skirmishes and ignoring the real war, for lack of leadership. .
Thermodynamics is the ground upon which conventional religion absolutely, irrevocably, parts company with science. Either thermodynamics is correct, or religions which believe in an omnipotent God who created energy are correct. Both cannot be.
G
greylorn
Guest
I do not know what you mean by “natural (physical) evil.”
Is a crocodile lunching on someone’s dog, evil? No more so than you eating a steak.
Is throwing someone’s dog to a croc evil? If the beast is barking day and night and keeping neighbors awake, it is the right thing to do.
Is throwing someone to a croc evil? It seems to me that this depends upon the throwee. Throwing small children to hungry critters is, in my opinion evil. Throwing drug dealers, politicians, and lawyers to carnivorous beasties seems like a good way to clean up the planet. Yet there have been “civilizations” which tore out the hearts of children to appease what those pinheads worshiped by way of god.
I believe in evil. It is a strong, powerful reality. But I see it in places where others do not. There is as much evil in those who look the other way when it is being perpetrated, as in the minds of the perpetrators. Some people declare that children cannot be evil. If so, what is the exact age limit?
While I believe in evil I find it impossible to define with a single rule or generality. For example, King David’s lust for his general’s wife was not evil. His sending that general to certain death was evil personified.
I do not understand how the existence or not of evil might apply to Darwinism. Kindly clarify your meaning and context.
Your statement that, “belief in evolution does not entail neo-Darwinism” is correct. The term “evolution” applies (in biology) to observable changes to critters over time, for which there is evidence. Neo-Darwinism is a widely accepted theory which attempts and fails to explain the evidence.
I’m curious as to what is your explanation for the evidence of evolution. ??
G
greylorn
Guest
You have a lot of innovative and imaginative ideas in here. If you’d not mixed them up with conventional beliefs, you’d be in line for the Nobel Prize in metaphysics.
Clearly, you know that “restricted omnipotence” is not omnipotence. It implies limitations, which omnipotence cannot, by definition, have.
I like your “richness and variety” argument.
[edited]
T
tonyrey
Guest
G
greylorn
Guest
greylorn;5491903:
That seems fair, since I disagree with all theists, atheists, and deists.
There will not be any intelligent pantheistic talking points until I finish the book I’m working on. Then we can start one.
That is entirely a matter of context. When my three daughters were very young, preschool, we lived in an old one room schoolhouse on a rural intersection. On the immediate north of our property boundary was a two-lane highway used by overweight trucks bypassing the scales on I-94. To the east was a tavern which had the reputation of being the toughest bar in the county, perhaps the state. We had an acre of grassy land and I wanted the girls to play on it freely, but I did not want them to cross the boundaries I’d installed, open but defined fences and rows of trees.That is the whole point! The restrictions are self-imposed . You, I am sure, don’t choose to control your family with an iron fist and force them to do exactly what you want… or do you?
Once, one did. I spanked her bare behind so hard that my hand, not quite iron, hurt me.
She and her siblings are alive and prospering, because none ever put a finger beyond that or any other important boundary again.
I built the girls a tree house which consisted of a plywood platform 15ft up in a corner maple tree, with single 2x4’s nailed around the perimeter about 2’ above the platform by way of railing. Any of them could have fallen or been pushed to injury or death with a single slip— and they knew this. Their “ladder” up was a series of 2x2’s ringshanked into the tree trunk. They spent a lot of time up there together, probably whining about their cranky father.
Boundaries take various forms. Some are arbitrary, others are a matter of short or long term life or death.
As they grew up, they learned what boundaries were important and how to set their own. None smoked or did drugs. These were boundaries I’d advised but was not around consistently enough to enforce with any number of fists.
Be that way! Were your comment mere common sense, I’d surely have figured it out on my own. If I never compliment you again, you’ll know why.
A
Areopagite
Guest
Thank you. I don’t think you’re an idiot either. You have questions/objections that should be taken seriously.
Yeah, it’s true probably … I don’t understand entropy. At least, that’s what I feel like.
Maybe. What would be a better word than “law” to explain consistent physical phenomenon? And why would it be better than “law.”
Now, what I think I remember hearing in my physics class is that sub-zero K is actually theoretically impossible. Zero K, on the other hand, is theoretically possible but perhaps practically impossible. You see, sub-zero K is not something we can even define … right? So thus we cannot even come up with any kind of conceivable theory on what it would be like. Because, I think, it*** involves a contradiction*** (b/c it involves particles moving less than nothing … or something). Is this not true?
So, thus, I would say God cannot cause sub-zero K temperatures because it’s essence/definition involves a contradiction … a metaphysical impossibility. (to recap, my position is that God can contradict physical necessity but not metaphysical necessity … unless, of course, the physical necessity in question also involves a metaphysical necessity a.k.a. logical necessity).
Well, for what it’s worth, you’re in good company with Plato. Plato thought that matter was always in existence and that this supreme being called the Demiurge took the matter and formed it and produced all the substances in the universe.
However, if I may, before I raise questions about your position here, is there a reason why you say that God can’t violate the 1st law? I’m not quite sure why it has to be the case.
The Catholic and Thomistic view of God’s omnipotence is that God can do whatever can be conceived and/or has no logical contradiction to it. David Hume (a modern philosopher and not a Catholic … in fact, I would say a bad philosopher in general … for what it’s worth) said something that I (nonetheless) agree with and is in tune with Thomism and has shaken the foundation of many modernist thinkers when it comes to natural phenomenon … Hume is perhaps most famous for this: physical cause and effect is different from logical causation. That is, you cannot argue that physical laws, i.e. repetition in nature, is logically necessitated. Gravity is not a logical necessity. It is just a repetition. So, conceivably, gravity does not have to work. And if it’s conceivable, then it’s in the realm of God’s omnipotence to contradict it. I would say that violating the 1st law of thermodynamics is conceivable and thus not logically impossible … and thus I would say God does not have to abide by it.
An example of a logical/metaphysical contradiction is a square circle. The definition of a circle and the definition of a square logically cannot be combined to form a conceivable thing like that.
These might be broad strokes. I’ll wait for your reply before I go on further.
I, likewise, shall continue this on a sequel post …
A
Areopagite
Guest
It’s true that Aristotelian physics are laughable, and you have a sympathetic point. I don’t blame you at all. However, skeptical physicists/philosophers have yet to prove that Aristotle’s metaphysics and natural theology are incompatible with updated modern physics. In fact, there have been a number of philosopher scientists (to my knowledge) that have shown that, despite ol’ Aristotle’s mistakes, that his metaphysical conclusions are still sound. I think one example is Father Stanley Jaki (recently deceased, recipient of the Templeton Award). There was a professor at my college who taught a course that Aristotle’s metaphysics (and thus Aquinas’ theology) were compatible with correct physics … but I didn’t take it … much to my eternal regret.
Oh, and just to squash one idea that you have that is very wrong … the medievals did not think the world was flat. What we are taught in school on this point is a lie. They definitely thought is what a sphere … or an “orb” or “orbis” as the Latin goes. If anything, I know this for a fact. Anything else I say here can reasonably be put into question.
The “God concept” was around well before great thinkers were around.
Bruno Giordano, if I’m not mistaken, was not burnt for his beliefs regarding physics but because he was attacking the doctrine of the Eucharist and the Virgin Mary and things of that nature. I might be wrong. Of course, you can disagree about burning people at the stake at all … and you would be in the company of some orthodox Catholic nowadays.
And for what it’s worth, most scientists, especially the very influential ones throughout history, believed in God … and were Christian too.
The Catholic Church does not condemn the theory of evolution (…or creationism). Creationism usually has better company with Protestants. Augustine, it seems, believed in evolution. And you can argue that Empedocles, the ancient Greek philosopher, believed in it too. If you are a staunch evolutionist, don’t worry … you won’t be burnt for it in the Catholic Church.
In fact, John Paul II seemed to say that evolution is the more likely theory.Well, I don’t think so. But let’s talk.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
The topic is the Catholic understanding of God’s omnipotence. Please stay on topic, everyone. Take any side discussion to new or existing threads in the appropriate forums. Thank you all.
T
tonyrey
Guest
tonyrey;5494839:
In that case I hastily retract my statement! (But you would have figured it out if your interest lay in that direction.Be that way! Were your comment mere common sense, I’d surely have figured it out on my own. If I never compliment you again, you’ll know why.
G
greylorn
Guest
You are correct, and the mea culpa is on me.
I’ve initiated a new thread for the purpose of continuing this discussion, and with luck, restricting it to unorthodox considerations of the omnipotence issue. It is,
Unofficial Positions on Omnipotence.
Tonyrey, Aeropagite---- I’'ll reply to your posts from this thread, there, tomorrow or Friday and hope you will meet me there. Should you prefer to start your own threads, I’ll meet you if appropriate.
- Status