Which universe would you choose?

[ricmat]

I understand this, and i respect it. I do believe in God, otherwise i would not label myself as a theist.

However: When it comes to metaphysics and logic, there is a rational reason why philosophies such as pantheism and panentheism exist. It is because you cannot get something out of that which is the antithesis of existence or being real. Thus, while their philosophies maybe erroneous, they recognize the necessity of explaining Gods creation of the universe in a manner that does not require them to say that at some point the universe came out of absolutely nothing.

I respect your desire for me to go to heaven. However, in a society where a rational conception of God is of most importance, faith is not enough.

Before i answer anything you have said, i want you to show me where i say that God is the antithesis of existence.

Apparently I misread your statement in the first post copied above, and used the “opportunity” to explain to someone who doesn’t disagree. I tend to do that sometimes. Sorry!

 

[ricmat]

No. The metaphysical dilemma is not forming something out of materials or things that are by themselves not the thing you intend to make. The dilemma, in a metaphysical context, is the idea of creating something despite having an absolute absence of any thing by which to make the thing in question. That is an act of getting something from nothing, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat where there was no rabbit or materials from which the rabbit was made.

This is a metaphysical impossibility.

Are you saying that it’s impossible for God, who is the basis of all existence, to create from nothing those things we call matter and energy? Are you leading back to the “well then, what created God” question? I’m trying to understand what you’re getting at…

Perhaps you could elucidate your thoughts about creation in a simple form so I can follow you.

 

[DonMack]

I’m not a scientist but my current understanding of what the scientists say about the ‘Big Bang’ is that our total universe started from a ‘brief moment in time’ when a minute particle, with enormous mass ‘exploded’ and over the next billions of years (working within the known laws of physics) slowly became our universe as we know it. That seems very reasonable to me… When it comes to what 'caused" that explosion and what was before that ‘brief moment in time’, that’s where science gets real squirrelly…string theory, alternate universes, theories too complicated for me even to contemplate and apparently too complicated for scientist to explain. My experiences give me a complete, very satisfactory and uncomplicated answer about what ‘was’ before the universe. There was God…the same God described in the Book of Moses… and God said 'Let there be light… Is that so much harder to believe than what scientists still don’t even come close to explaining?
Once I stopped ‘believing’ there is a god and started ‘KNOWING’ there is a God, my life became amazingly and irrevocably changed. Life isn’t very complicated when the 'Holy Spirit ’ comes and resides whithin…

 

[ReapReason]

Are you saying that it’s impossible for God, who is the basis of all existence, to create from nothing those things we call matter and energy? Are you leading back to the “well then, what created God” question? I’m trying to understand what you’re getting at…

Perhaps you could elucidate your thoughts about creation in a simple form so I can follow you.

He cannot create a distinct act of reality from that which was not a distinct act of reality. You cannot get reality from that which is the antithesis of reality.

I don’t know a better way of it explaining it.

Analogously, it is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat that didn’t exist in the first place.

It is a contradiction. An act either exists or it does not. You cannot make absolutely nothing a something; since that would be an act of giving properties to that which is by definition the absolute absence of properties. You would be removing the rational and absolute distinction between nothing and something. For example a square is never a triangle and can never be one so long as it is a square by definition; it is impossible to remove that distinction. It is also the case that nothing is never something, the absence of something can never become something without removing the distinction between something and nothing…

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not a scientist but my current understanding of what the scientists say about the ‘Big Bang’ is that our total universe started from a ‘brief moment in time’ when a minute particle, with enormous mass ‘exploded’ and over the next billions of years (working within the known laws of physics) slowly became our universe as we know it. That seems very reasonable to me… When it comes to what 'caused" that explosion and what was before that ‘brief moment in time’, that’s where science gets real squirrelly…string theory, alternate universes, theories too complicated for me even to contemplate and apparently too complicated for scientist to explain. My experiences give me a complete, very satisfactory and uncomplicated answer about what ‘was’ before the universe. There was God…the same God described in the Book of Moses… and God said 'Let there be light… Is that so much harder to believe than what scientists still don’t even come close to explaining?
Once I stopped ‘believing’ there is a god and started ‘KNOWING’ there is a God, my life became amazingly and irrevocably changed. Life isn’t very complicated when the 'Holy Spirit ’ comes and resides whithin…

I too know that a creator exists; but If a thing can in principle come out of nothing. Then there is no reason to think that a creator is more likely than the universe just popping in to being by itself.

 

[ricmat]

He cannot create a distinct act of reality from that which was not a distinct act of reality. You cannot get reality from that which is the antithesis of reality.

Analogously, it is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat that didn’t exist in the first place.

It is a contradiction. An act either exists or it does not. You cannot make absolutely nothing a something; since that would be an act of giving properties to that which is by definition the absolute absence of properties. You would be removing the rational and absolute distinction between nothing and something. For example a square is never a triangle and can never be one so long as it is a square by definition; it is impossible to remove that distinction. It is also the case that nothing is never something, the absence of something can never become something without removing the distinction between something and nothing…

But I think we agree that God really exists. We know some of God’s “properties” from revelation. And the universe really exists, now, because God caused it to exist.

God’s existence is something that can be revealed but cannot be “tested.”

Let’s talk about “beauty.” Artists take a blank canvas, totally devoid of beauty, and (sometimes - rarely these days) make this nothing into the something we call “beautiful.” They don’t take a bit of pre-beauty from here, and another bit of pre-beauty from over there, assemble it in the right way and voila! Rather, the beauty that is created comes from the mind of the artist, which is transcendent. You can argue that the paint and canvas already existed, but the aspect which gives the final painting its beauty was “nothing” before the artist conceived it.

Our ability even to “see” beauty is also a transcendent feature.

 

[JDaniel]

No. The metaphysical dilemma is not forming something out of materials or things that are by themselves not the thing you intend to make. The dilemma, in a metaphysical context, is the idea of creating something despite having an absolute absence of any thing by which to make the thing in question. That is an act of getting something from nothing, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat where there was no rabbit or materials from which the rabbit was made.

This is a metaphysical impossibility.

RR:

But, it may not be a physical impossibility, nor, an impossibility for God. Your dilemma seems to emanate from believing that creatures, i.e., all created things, must be beings; or more precisely, must be as we see them and science describes them to be. I don’t have that problem because I don’t believe that creatures are as we and science see them. I believe creatures are lattices of infinite space and point particles, instantiated and sustained by algorithms, so to speak, in the Mind of God, and only appear as though we are discrete physical beings. I believe our encounters are at the explicate level, whereas God operates and creates at an implicate level. Creatures, in other words, are exceedingly high definition holograms.

This view of God solves several problems for us. First it answers how God can and does cause all things to happen. Second, it is not pantheistic or panentheistic. Third, it answers the physics problem as to how we are hologramic. Fourth, it answers the problem of mass and the elusive Higgs boson. Fifth, it answers the question of where our souls come from. (This is enough for now.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I too know that a creator exists; but If a thing can in principle come out of nothing. Then there is no reason to think that a creator is more likely than the universe just popping in to being by itself.

RR:

No; that’s wrong. Creation is an action that absolutely requires being as being, existence as existence. It is, no doubt, an action that is quite difficult for mortal man to comprehend, but, there’s no rule, or law, that prevents God from thinking us. No universe (that we know of or postulate) is capable of doing that. A universe is merely large. But, it is finite. That which is merely finite cannot create anything that is equal or greater than itself. We know this a priori.

God bless,
jd

 

[DonMack]

Reapreason It appears that I might not have been clear about the distinction about ‘believing in god’ and KNOWING that God exists. The beginning of your sentence …“I too know that a creator exists”…tells me we aren’t on the same page. To me, there is a major difference between believing and knowing. There are many, many things that I believe…but very, very few things that I know. I know there is a Biblical God. I use to believe it, now I know it.Crazy as it sounds, it was revealed to me and I was given a completely new heart.Call 911 there’s a lunatic in the house !!!
You seem to insist that God is in our reality. I say that God is not in our reality. He created our reality; our universe and the laws of physics that holds it together. His existence is outside of time, form and space, So can I prove the existence of God in our reality? Of course not.That’s not where he is.If you have a moral compass…a conscious…? that’s the laws of God

 

[ReapReason]

RR:

No; that’s wrong. Creation is an action that absolutely requires being as being, existence as existence.

I never said that creation wasn’t an act that requires being as being. I said it is impossible to create something out of nothing.

It is, no doubt, an action that is quite difficult for mortal man to comprehend,

Irrelevant. Man can comprehend what is metaphysically possible and impossible.

but, there’s no rule, or law, that prevents God from thinking us.

You are correct. God conjoins abstract knowledge with his actuality (his objective esse), and that is how it is possible for there to be such a thing as actual finite essences. He does not create them out of absolutely nothing. We are a manifestation Of God abstract knowledge.

No universe (that we know of or postulate) is capable of doing that. A universe is merely large. But, it is finite. That which is merely finite cannot create anything that is equal or greater than itself. We know this a priori.

jd

That only true if you first accept the principle that out of nothing come nothing. If that is not true, then reality becomes fundamentally irrational, and in that case there is no reason to think that a creator is more likely than the idea that the universe popped out of nothing.

 

[ReapReason]

RR:

But, it may not be a physical impossibility, nor, an impossibility for God.

Let me make it clear, that i never said that it is impossible for God to create. i said it is impossible for GOD TO CREATE OUT OF NOTHING.

Your dilemma seems to emanate from believing that creatures, i.e., all created things, must be beings; or more precisely, must be as we see them and science describes them to be. I don’t have that problem because I don’t believe that creatures are as we and science see them. I believe creatures are lattices of infinite space and point particles, instantiated and sustained by algorithms, so to speak, in the Mind of God, and only appear as though we are discrete physical beings. I believe our encounters are at the explicate level, whereas God operates and creates at an implicate level. Creatures, in other words, are exceedingly high definition holograms.
jd

In other words we are phantasms in Gods mind. I haven’t god a problem with the idea that we exist in Gods mind. That is one way of looking at it. Its an okay theory. At least you are actually addressing the problem instead of dodging the issue like some other Catholics i have recently debated.

 

[JDaniel]

Let me make it clear, that i never said that it is impossible for God to create. i said it is impossible for GOD TO CREATE OUT OF NOTHING.

RR:

I’ve been saying that for nearly four years!

In other words we are phantasms in Gods mind. I haven’t god a problem with the idea that we exist in Gods mind. That is one way of looking at it. Its an okay theory. At least you are actually addressing the problem instead of dodging the issue like some other Catholics i have recently debated.

Why then, did it take this long to discover that we almost agree?

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

J.D. & Reap

You can argue over who said what till the cows come home. But Catholic teaching is that God created the world ( i.e. the entire universe of contingent beings ) whereas previously only God existed. This does not mean that the contingent universe somehow eminated from God. The universe is not a part of God. It has its own existence entirely separate from God, except he created it and still exercises causality in it, keeps it in existence, and orders all its activities to their proper ends. The language used by the Church, as by philosophers, is to say that God created the universe of contingent beings out of nothing, out of no pre-existing matter, and certainly not out of himself. But for some reason the phrase " created the universe out of nothing " seems to cause confusion for some people.

O.K. That is a problem for those people. Not for me and not for the Catholic Church.

Also, this is the position of Thomas Aquinas and all the Scholastics and all Catholic philosophers of any kind. No where in there works do we find the notion that the universe of contingent beings comes from the substance of God. God is the the cause of their existence and of their continued existence.

This is way off topic but you both seemed to be skirting along the edge of error and I didn’t want it to misslead the public. Let’s get back on topic. These issues have been debated on several endless threads and I do not intend to debate them. Thanks

 

[PeeGump]

So what is it that drives you to convince us that God does not exist? If we end up believing you, how does that benefit us?

I was born and raised Catholic. I no longer believe in God (although I can’t seem to break the habit of capitalizing the ‘G’ still). For years I fought with the contradictions I saw in my faith and struggled with rectifying my own thoughts and feelings with those that the church said I should have. I feel like I was “saved” when I met an atheist who was open (not evangelical) and made me realize that it was OK to think for myself. Since then I have been happier in life than ever before. Being freed from a faith structure has been extremely beneficial for me and I’m sure could be for many others.

And even more importantly, what difference does it make, to you, that we agree with you or not?

A few points here:

1. I don’t personally care if you agree with me about certain things. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, you can’t choose what is and is not true. The universe is the way it is. The fundamental laws that it follows are set. So you can’t disagree when someone says we live in this particular universe just because you’d rather be in one that behaves differently.
2. I think your assertion that “As random collections of dust totally driven by the laws of physics, we inherit nothing” is incorrect and sad. First: saying that we are “random collections” that are “totally driven by laws” is a contradiction. Second: I find more beauty and enjoyment in observing the Earth (star dust that collected according to the fundamental laws over 4.5 billion years ago), the cosmos (13.7 billion years of beauty and history), and all the life around us ( 2 billion years of evolution) than I could spending a lifetime imagining what heaven would be like (if it were to exist, which I don’t think it does). If you can watch the sun rise or kittens playing or a baby laugh and not have an emotional response without invoking the thought of heaven I feel sorry for you.
3. Most importantly, there are so many horrors that are carried out in the name of God and religion that there is a legitimate common interest in convincing people that God does not exist. Think of how many lives would be saved if suicide bombers had no expectation of entrance into heaven (or “Jannah” for Islamists). Or how much more civil society would be without protests about churches, mosques, or around military funerals. Not only do I see a benefit to you individually if you turned from faith to rationality, but I see a benefit to those around you and to the rest of the world.

 

[ReapReason]

J.D. & Reap

It has its own existence entirely separate from God

Contingent essences are entirely distinct from Gods essence; that much is true. But there is only one act of reality, and that is God.

Why? Because you cannot get an act of reality out of nothing. There is nothing you can do to change that fact. Either your faith is compatible with that fact or it is not. I am not going to bend metaphysical fact to suite somebodies religious interpretation.

However, while God cannot get an act of reality out nothing, God can and does form abstractions; timeless expressions Of Gods eternal self-knowledge which means that he has knowledge of all possibilities that reflect his nature. The content or information in those abstractions, such as the idea of a dog or a cat or a human being, is not Gods nature, insofar as God is not a cat or a dog or a human being. He actualises that information by conjoining his actuality with his abstractions. This forms what we understand to be an actual essence. The essence is absolutely distinct from God in so far as God nature is not a cat or a dog or a human-being.

 

[ReapReason]

But for some reason the phrase " created the universe out of nothing " seems to cause confusion for some people.

It causes confusion for people if you intend to interpret that statement metaphysically. Like I said before, you have a superficial understanding of metaphysics, and I hope for the sake of my faith that you have a superficial understanding of Catholic theology regarding creation. Otherwise I cannot accept the Catholic faith.

You cannot get something from nothing. That is the bottom line. Any rational philosopher knows that, and any self respecting intellectual will run a mile from a religion that would argue otherwise as a core theology.

When doing philosophy, it is irrelevant whether or not the answer it provides measures up to your beliefs. What matters is the truth.

I personally don’t think that what has been said does conflict with the faith so long as people recognise the distinction between the nature (essence) of a thing and the existence or act (esse) of its nature. I believe that the difference between God and creation is purely to do with the intrinsic difference or distinction between esse and essence insofar as that relates to Gods relationship towards contingent natures.

God is not essentially a dog; but he is the esse of that Dog, or the isness of it. That alone is reason enough to distinguish between Creator and creation, and only that interpetaion can make sense of the idea of God conserving the universe in being. It is not pantheism, or panenthestic emanations.

 

[ricmat]

I was born and raised Catholic. I no longer believe in God (although I can’t seem to break the habit of capitalizing the ‘G’ still). For years I fought with the contradictions I saw in my faith and struggled with rectifying my own thoughts and feelings with those that the church said I should have. I feel like I was “saved” when I met an atheist who was open (not evangelical) and made me realize that it was OK to think for myself. Since then I have been happier in life than ever before. Being freed from a faith structure has been extremely beneficial for me and I’m sure could be for many others.

First of all, welcome to the forums PeeGump!

Does “thinking for yourself” automatically rule out believing what you (apparently) were told?

I’d be willing to bet that the contradictions you saw, were not when looked at carefully. I also know from my own experience, and that of my children, and from the many students for confirmation (and their parents), that most Catholics are very poorly catechized. They don’t really know what the Church teaches, or why.

“Happier than ever before”…I don’t know if this applies to you or not, but many people find happiness in sin, and don’t want anyone to tell them that they’re sinning, or that it’s wrong. Sex outside of marriage, for example. Certainly, you won’t find atheists telling each other that they’re sinning.

And in any case

A few points here:

1. I don’t personally care if you agree with me about certain things. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, you can’t choose what is and is not true. The universe is the way it is. The fundamental laws that it follows are set. So you can’t disagree when someone says we live in this particular universe just because you’d rather be in one that behaves differently.

I would say the same thing. The universe is the way it is because God made it that way, laws and all. To deny God is to deny reality.

1. I think your assertion that “As random collections of dust totally driven by the laws of physics, we inherit nothing” is incorrect and sad. First: saying that we are “random collections” that are “totally driven by laws” is a contradiction.

And what then gives the laws meaning or purpose if not God?

Second: I find more beauty and enjoyment in observing the Earth (star dust that collected according to the fundamental laws over 4.5 billion years ago), the cosmos (13.7 billion years of beauty and history),

So do we!

and all the life around us ( 2 billion years of evolution) than I could spending a lifetime imagining what heaven would be like (if it were to exist, which I don’t think it does). If you can watch the sun rise or kittens playing or a baby laugh and not have an emotional response without invoking the thought of heaven I feel sorry for you.

And why do these good thoughts exist? And who defines them as good or beautiful?

1. Most importantly, there are so many horrors that are carried out in the name of God and religion that there is a legitimate common interest in convincing people that God does not exist.

And the horrors carried out in the name of eliminating God? There are those too. Have Catholics done bad things? Yes, of course. Were they following Catholic teachings at the time? No.

Perhaps you might start some threads expressing your disagreement with specific Catholic teachings, and see where that goes…

 

[wanstronian]

I chose the universe that I actually live in. Option A.

 

[ReapReason]

I chose the universe that I actually live in. Option A.

Translation: “I “wanstronian” choose option A. That is the Universe I would like to think I live in, because it suites me to be a metaphysical naturalist: but instead of admitting that there is no rational evidence for metaphysical naturalism, I will instead arrogantly express this unfounded belief so as to imply that I have a superior understanding of reality. This I will do purely because I like to provoke and upset people who have a Christian mindset. This is otherwise known as trolling: my favourite pass time”

 

[wanstronian]

Translation: “I “wanstronian” choose option A. That is the Universe I would like to think I live in, because it suites me to be a metaphysical naturalist: but instead of admitting that there is no rational evidence for metaphysical naturalism, I will instead arrogantly express this unfounded belief so as to imply that I have a superior understanding of reality. This I will do purely because I like to provoke and upset people who have a Christian mindset. This is otherwise known as trolling: my favourite pass time”

Chill dude, I was just having a giggle.