Why create the world at all?

[JDaniel]

If aliens don’t exist, it is pretty much evidence that God definitely exists - the chance of life only existing on Earth is astronomically small unless God only created life on earth.

Razredge:

I don’t see how. Can you explicate an argument of some kind?

Though I believe they do, there is some evidence of recent supernatural events which could well be explained by alien visitors, time travellers or interdimensional beings.

Such as . . .

I don’t quite understand what point you’re trying to make, so forgive me if I miss something.

That’s quite all right. Take your time and do ask questions.

You seem to assume that evolution is a process that leads to perfection - it does not. There is no evidence that humans are ‘perfect’ creatures and the soul is not the ‘ultimate perfection of matter’ since if it was matter it wouldn’t be a soul.

You have bought into an assumption from someplace outside of the Church. The soul of man is his form. It is that which individuates him/her from all other beings. It is the form of primary matter.Do you not think that appearance alone distinguishes us from one another? Now, if you do, then what about twins? Their appearance may not, at least not from a distant perspective, then, what is next? Could it be that personality is next?

Your concept of soul is, without being denigrating towards you in any way, juvenile. St. Thomas clearly tells us that the soul is the formal cause of a man. And, primary matter is the material cause. The form can’t persist, or be known, without its adherence in matter. So, somehow, the soul is matter too. The form is not some separate thing. The soul is not some thing that can fly, or float about. That’s the stuff of cartoons.

Your conclusion seems to commit an anthropic fallacy as you are looking at the universe from a human point of view, through the lens of human history and science - we have no idea what other forms of life can look like or how complex they may or may not be.

Well, don’t blame me; I’m in good company. St. Thomas Aquinas’ ideas are parallel to mine. And, I’m pretty sure so are the Churches. Again, you are viewing it through the lenses of Star Trek and other science fiction movies and other genera. The problem is: we have no proof of anything more perfect than the soul of man. Nothing. Name one thing more perfect. And not merely conjecture.

It is rather like a person who has lived their entire life in a building with no windows, TVs etc, internet, books etc. and assumes based on their experience that this is all there is to the world.

On the other hand, it could be that the person has spent all of his/her life living in a building full of windows, TV’s in every room, the internet in every room, and books of all the most superficial kind, and assumes based on his/her experience that this is all there is to the world!

God bless,
jd

 

[razredge]

Razredge:

Here’s an interesting paragraph from the Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Chap VIII, The Angels, PP. 248, 1962:

Here is article # 10:

“Angels have free will; they are capable of love and hatred.” - ibid. pp 259.

The theological thinking concerning that is as follows:

I.)“The angel never goes back on a decision once taken.” - ibid. pp 259

Not quite. Angels are much more than “manifest messengers of God.”

I think you can rule this one out.

What do you think?

God bless,
jd

If the angels have free will in heaven, do we then also have free will in heaven?

I have been told otherwise so am not sure if there’s a teaching on this (or if it’s open to speculation which it probably is).

I still think 1 is the best conclusion (perhaps with the added comment ‘God has mysterious reasons for doing this which we cannot understand’. What do you think?

Razredge:

An exorcism is not a spectacle.

Quote:
And while the Bible may be infallible - this is only in regards to matters pertaining to salvation, it is not infallible with regards to science or history.

Quote:
So you think humans are greater than angels since we can share in God’s divinity unlike angels?
No, I do not.

Quote:

I think that besides the obvious differences between angels and humans, the biggest difference between the two is that humans - at least for a time - can make reparation and alter their choice. I am not sure that this ability makes us superior to them, but it certainly gives us an advantage that angels do not possess.

God bless,

I don’t know about exorcism not being a spectacle - it is direct, visible proof of the supernatural after all - I mean the Church is fine with visiting Lourdes or the Miracle of Lanciano so does not actually shy away from these sort of things. Since psychologists are allowed in on exorcisms there’s no reason why it can’t allow scientists or skeptics to attend as well - unless of course the Church has something to hide. If a skeptic attended an exorcism and was sufficiently convinced to report on it or invite other skeptics to see for themselves that would be as good an affirmation that God exists than anything else I can think of.

The bible doesn’t seem to be infallible in regards to science or history. Eg. the age of the earth according to Genesis with the actual age etc. But if you believe in ID/creationism then i’m not going into an argument here as there are plenty of threads on that.

The ‘sharing in divinity’ thing comes back to a reason why humans may have advantages over angelic beings. Someone else suggested that humans alone can fully share in God’s divinity.

The angels can’t change their mind is another example of such an advantage - it is effectively equivalent to earlier posts that angels had to undergo some sort of trial or choice before they entered heaven (and some chose hell) - so it would seem that there is no free will in heaven after the initial choices of the angels.

 

[razredge]

Perhaps you haven’t met the kind of skeptics I have . . . people can be so hard hearted that they wouldn’t believe in God if He materialized visibly and slapped them in the face. Skeptics and secular psychologists tend to be closed to the possibility of demonic possession. But people who go to see exorcists have usually been through a lot of secular psychologists/medics, without experiencing any help from them that actually alleviated their problems (while the effort put into getting all this treatment came for most at a huge financial expense).

Well, that’s true to some extent. but tangible proof staring you in the face is far more convincing than hearsay - I know at least one atheist physics professor who was challenged to go on a ghost tour and changed his mind.

There’s no contradiction there. The logical conclusion is that the entirety of the Bible is infallible and written for our salvation. That also is definitely the teaching of Sacred Tradition. All our Doctors of the Church and Fathers have agreed that the Bible is completely infallible, not just partly. Each teaching is completely true in its genre. So Psalmist poetry that has various spiritual messages, but was never intended to be taken according to the literal wording, is still infallible in those messages, in what truth was intended to be conveyed. Similarly, fictional stories are infallible in the morals or messages of the stories, which is all the truth that was intended to be conveyed (not history). And historical books are true in the history they intended to convey.

Yes, I think we agree that we should read the Bible in it’s literary and historical context and not just word for word - I agree with Galileo " the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go", St Augustine also said as much.

Old Testament history is strongly confirmed by the records of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and other ancient civilizations surrounding it.

I wouldn’t say ‘strongly confirmed’, some parts of it are, others not so much. The New Testament is far more historically reliable.

Says who?

Satan sure seems extremely malevolent to me, in Job. He kills Job’s family, destroys his goods and attacks his flesh with boils and a wasting sickness. He’s brutal to Job, like he has been to many saints, all in an effort to get him to commit grave sin and fall away from his state of grace. Satan is entirely savage in the Book of Job, as he is in the other books of the Bible (and in the writings of other ancient religions).

Satan’s malevolence in Job is completely sanctioned by God though. But this is going off topic - Satan is malevolent, i’ll give you that.

I think that’s true. At the same time, observing the Face of God in the Beatific Vision so completely consumes you with overwhelming love and joy that it would be impossible to sin again or choose to reject God. You never would want to, and you couldn’t ever want to or choose to. Imagine being stabbed in the heart by a spear. That’s it. Life as you knew it is over. You look God in the Face and are blown away with the most complete joy, love and unity with perfection, with everything that completes and fulfills you, that you never would want or could want to have anything different. So Free Will ends because you are completely united with the will of God, by a perfect, loving choice of your own. Having chosen Him freely on Earth, and having suffered for Him with love, makes this triumph and glory all the sweeter

Yes, I like it also - I prefer it to ‘no free will’ in heaven as it would deny that the soul has the capacity to make free decisions.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Hi - I’m a long time lurker, first time poster.

I have a question that I haven’t been able to think or find and answer to - and normally when encountering unaddressed/open theological problems I can usually formulate something that makes sense to me - so am putting it out there:

If heaven is preferable to our existence here on Earth - why did God bother creating the universe and not just create us in heaven like the angels?

I like the question.

Of course, we can only speculate.

When I think of anything anyone of us has created, it was sourced from who we were, at the time - i.e., our talents, emotions, history, etc.

I should imagine something similar with God.

Though all could have been different, the difference would not have been by His choice, at the time.

Would we want any choice different than His?

 

[tonyrey]

Would we want any choice different than His?

Why not? It wouldn’t necessarily be evil…

 

[razredge]

That’s quite all right. Take your time and do ask questions.

Well, don’t blame me; I’m in good company. St. Thomas Aquinas’ ideas are parallel to mine. And, I’m pretty sure so are the Churches. Again, you are viewing it through the lenses of Star Trek and other science fiction movies and other genera. The problem is: we have no proof of anything more perfect than the soul of man. Nothing. Name one thing more perfect. And not merely conjecture.

On the other hand, it could be that the person has spent all of his/her life living in a building full of windows, TV’s in every room, the internet in every room, and books of all the most superficial kind, and assumes based on his/her experience that this is all there is to the world!

God bless,
jd

Razredge:

I don’t see how. Can you explicate an argument of some kind?

 

[Curious_Seed]

Why not? It wouldn’t necessarily be evil…

In fact, it could not be evil, given it was sourced from God.

For any given creativity you generate, choices are exercised.

Due to your selection of choices, other choices [other differences] are abandonned.

Given the creativity being yours, the differences were rejected for a reason [whether substantial or trivial].

Would I want a difference?

Perhaps, probably, probably.

But, that would be from my vision, not yours.

I prefer God’s vision, over my own.

 

[JDaniel]

If the angels have free will in heaven, do we then also have free will in heaven?

Razredge:

That is a good question. It is one that I am ashamed to admit that I have not asked, nor have I followed up to obtain an answer. From an extension of the foregoing paragraphs one could make a reasonably true presumption that we may not. But, not because of any sort of superiority, but rather, because we have been human and while human, did make a choice which was permanantized, so to say.

I have been told otherwise so am not sure if there’s a teaching on this (or if it’s open to speculation which it probably is).

If anyone knows the answer to this please interject.

I still think 1 is the best conclusion (perhaps with the added comment ‘God has mysterious reasons for doing this which we cannot understand’. What do you think?

I reservedly agree.

I don’t know about exorcism not being a spectacle - it is direct, visible proof of the supernatural after all –

There are at least two definitions of “spectacle” in common parlance. I did not mean that which can be viewed or seen. I meant the earliest meaning (see below):
From the Oxford Dictionaries –
"noun
• a visually striking performance or display: the acrobatic feats make a good spectacle; the show is pure spectacle
• an event or scene regarded in terms of its visual impact: the spectacle of a city’s mass grief

I mean the Church is fine with visiting Lourdes or the Miracle of Lanciano so does not actually shy away from these sort of things. Since psychologists are allowed in on exorcisms there’s no reason why it can’t allow scientists or skeptics to attend as well - unless of course the Church has something to hide. If a skeptic attended an exorcism and was sufficiently convinced to report on it or invite other skeptics to see for themselves that would be as good an affirmation that God exists than anything else I can think of.

When psychologists are I am sure it is for good reason, not for the show. The Church will always protect the individual soul rather than “make it a spectacle.”

The ‘sharing in divinity’ thing comes back to a reason why humans may have advantages over angelic beings. Someone else suggested that humans alone can fully share in God’s divinity.

This is a question with a very large answer. I’m not so sure that humans share in God’s divinity, as you say. The reason why Christ underwent the Sacrifice was to teach us how to express true, filial love for the Father. Adam failed to. We, in general, don’t have to fail. But if we don’t fully grasp the entirety of the concept of redemption, we will.

The angels can’t change their mind is another example of such an advantage - it is effectively equivalent to earlier posts that angels had to undergo some sort of trial or choice before they entered heaven (and some chose hell) - so it would seem that there is no free will in heaven after the initial choices of the angels.

We cannot view it as an inability on the part of the angels. Rather, it is a direct consequence of having been infused with all knowledge:

“It may be said of an angel that he applies his knowledge to new objects, but he does not acquire new ideas that were not infused in him by the Creator in the very making of him.” – The Teaching of the Catholic Church, pp 262,1962
No, Satan chose himself, not Hell. His followers chose him as well. It was really more an ego thing rather than a choice of the Vision or Hell.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, just down to probability - there are between 100 billion to 1 trillion stars in a galaxy and it is estimated that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Raz:

Well, there’s probability (mathematics) and there’s reality (the physical quanta of the universe). So far, SETI has found no intelligible signals from outer space. So, based on the fact that there is/are no known life forms greater than human beings, we shall leave the door ajar but admit that conclusion.

That’s something like 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, assuming many of them have solar systems with planets then it seems very likely that there are many other earth like planets in the observable universe and so it seems almost certain that life could have arose elsewhere in the universe.

All of the probabilities of physics clearly coalesce to explain a universe that is fine tuned for life. And, not only fine tuned but caused by something transcendental. Yet we are admonished that such extraordinary 'probability" is not proof in any way.

If we are the only planet with life on it in the entire universe would be so improbable that we could be justified in saying a God must exist to only create life on this one world and nowhere else.

I think that is unjustifiable. Give me the syllogism.

Huh, really? I’m pretty sure my views are the majority among Catholics - so a lot of people are wrong then… I always thought the soul was immaterial spirit and the seat of consciousness.

The Teaching of the Catholic Church, pp 1214-1215, 1962. - "Christian theology professes a larger and more complete view of the nature of man then that held by pagan or heretic. Nor is the Church disposed to abandon that theology because certain modern philosophers would revive the views of Plato or the Manicheans.The Christian theology holds that man was created a complete unity of body and soul, and that no mere accidental connection, but a close substantial union. In this creation, furthermore, by the grace of God, he enjoyed a perfect balance of his powers and faculties, the body being the perfect partner and docile instrument of the soul, and endowed with immortality. And so would man have remained, in an everlasting life uninterrupted by death, had not sin intervened. But sin came, the balance of man’s nature was upset, and there came also the penalty of death to dissolve the union of soul and body. Yet not finally and for ever. Sin was expiated by the death of the Redeemer, and our resurrection achieved in his Resurrection. So the separation of death was not final. Body and soul were to be united once more, and that for eternity.

“To such a theology, therefore, the body is not a prison-house or tomb, in which the soul is confined for a time, and from which it gladly makes its escape; but it is a real part of the man, united with the soul to form one perfect being.”

I don’t know what you mean by the soul of man is his form - surely our appearance has nothing to do with our soul. Appearance is an attribute of the physical body. Something like personality would be an attribute of the soul.

(See above.)"St. Thomas says . . . “It is contrary to the nature of the soul to be without the body; and, since nothing that is contrary to nature can endure, therefore the soul will not be for ever without the body. Now the soul lasts for ever, and so it must be conjoined again with the body. That is the resurrection. Therefore the immortality of the soul would appear to demand the resurrection of the body.” - Contra Gentiles, iv 79.

The soul cannot be physical in makeup (otherwise it could be detected via science), so I don’t know what you mean by the ‘soul is matter too’ do you mean a kind of spiritual matter/substance?

Yes.

God bless,
jd

 

[razredge]

Razredge:

That is a good question. It is one that I am ashamed to admit that I have not asked, nor have I followed up to obtain an answer. From an extension of the foregoing paragraphs one could make a reasonably true presumption that we may not. But, not because of any sort of superiority, but rather, because we have been human and while human, did make a choice which was permanantized, so to say.

There are at least two definitions of “spectacle” in common parlance. I did not mean that which can be viewed or seen. I meant the earliest meaning (see below):
From the Oxford Dictionaries –
"noun
• a visually striking performance or display: the acrobatic feats make a good spectacle; the show is pure spectacle
• an event or scene regarded in terms of its visual impact: the spectacle of a city’s mass grief

When psychologists are I am sure it is for good reason, not for the show. The Church will always protect the individual soul rather than “make it a spectacle.”

Yes, I agree with that. Have you read Michael Cuneo’s book ‘American Exorcism’
amazon.com/American-Exorcism-Expelling-Demons-Plenty/dp/0385501765

He’s a Fordham University anthropologist and attended some 50 Catholic & Protestant exorcisms but did not see anything occur that would suggest the supernatural.
angelfire.com/journal2/nambiet/ct03.html

Have you witnessed an exorcism or a deliverance session in which you were convinced demons were really cast out?
I always go on site and interview people directly and take situations seriously. But still there’s so much I don’t know. I attended more than 50 exorcisms and never once did I walk away convinced that the person being exorcised was really demonized. I always thought that medical, cultural, and psychiatric explanations could have accounted for what was going on. But I could be wrong. And people would always say to me, “But Michael, you should have been here last week.”
You just missed it!
But that might be tree. And some would say to me, “The reason you haven’t seen really powerful and dramatic symptoms of demonization, such as bodies levitating and so forth, is that you’re a writer, and the Devil is trying to disguise his activity and hide it from you.” I would find that strange but, nevertheless, it may be a possibility. A psychiatrist friend told me that, in his estimation, 999 out of 1,000 claims of demonic possession are false claims. But he believes that there’s always that one out of 1,000 which isn’t false. I never happened across that one.

I tend to agree with the 99.9% of demonic possession claims are false.

This is a question with a very large answer. I’m not so sure that humans share in God’s divinity, as you say.

Yeah, I don’t think so either - we can experience his divinity but I don’t think we can become divine ourselves.

We cannot view it as an inability on the part of the angels. Rather, it is a direct consequence of having been infused with all knowledge:

Makes sense

All of the probabilities of physics clearly coalesce to explain a universe that is fine tuned for life. And, not only fine tuned but caused by something transcendental. Yet we are admonished that such extraordinary 'probability" is not proof in any way.

I think that is unjustifiable. Give me the syllogism

Well, since the universe is fine tuned for life - there must surely be life out there somewhere - the sample space is far too huge for there to be only 1 planet in an entire universe capable of bearing life.

So if there really is no other life in the universe - it would be strong proof for a God who only started life on Earth through divine intervention rather than it arising by natural causes (as if it could arise from natural causes here it would surely arise elsewhere as well).

Well, there’s probability (mathematics) and there’s reality (the physical quanta of the universe). So far, SETI has found no intelligible signals from outer space. So, based on the fact that there is/are no known life forms greater than human beings, we shall leave the door ajar but admit that conclusion.

SETI is far from conclusive because of the possible sheer otherness of any kind of communication from what we humans can expect.

Watch this video of Dr Michio Kaku tackling this problem.
youtube.com/watch?v=YW_RF-HlmRg

Quote:
The soul cannot be physical in makeup (otherwise it could be detected via science), so I don’t know what you mean by the ‘soul is matter too’ do you mean a kind of spiritual matter/substance?
Yes.

Ok, but spiritual matter is not really matter - matter is a physical substance.
The soul is some kind of spiritual/non-physical substance.

 

[JDaniel]

I think the no free will makes sense - some atheist on here brought heaven up as an example of a world without suffering created with free will so it’d solve that problem

Razredge:

Well, angels do have free will up to the point where they commit. Once committed, they do not change their “minds.” They possess all knowledge so it’s not like they don’t have all of the facts. If their choice(s) is/are opposed to the will of God, they have made an errant decision: one made prior to contemplation or, one made outside of the parameters of that contemplated, i.e., Satan’s choice.

Yes, I agree with that. Have you read Michael Cuneo’s book ‘American
Exorcism’

No, not yet. I’ll put it on my list, though I’m sitting here surrounded by seven unfinished books.

He’s a Fordham University anthropologist and attended some 50 Catholic & Protestant exorcisms but did not see anything occur that would suggest the supernatural.
angelfire.com/journal2/nambiet/ct03.html

Interesting.

I tend to agree with the 99.9% of demonic possession claims are false.

I tend to agree as well.

Well, since the universe is fine tuned for life - there must surely be life out there somewhere - the sample space is far too huge for there to be only 1 planet in an entire universe capable of bearing life.

Well, not necessarily. Don’t forget, God creates for the sole sake of self-contemplation. The universe need only be that which was created by God for His own enjoyment.

So if there really is no other life in the universe - it would be strong proof for a God who only started life on Earth through divine intervention rather than it arising by natural causes (as if it could arise from natural causes here it would surely arise elsewhere as well).

Creation is not ‘divine intervention’ don’t you see? I view Creation as a rolling-out of all that is and will be, temporally, i.e., for God it is a non-temporal sequential act of perfecting. That which exists, is more perfect than that which is merely held in the mind, or imagination, right? Primary Matter is imperfect unless and until it obtains a Form, for which it is starving, and the higher the Form, the more perfect. And, of course, the achievement of the end (reason) for which a creature is made, is a further advance into perfection, right? For example, take an ice cream soda, say vanilla ice cream and root beer. It’s pretty nice to look at, but, consumed is when it’s in its full glory, right?

SETI is far from conclusive because of the possible sheer otherness of any kind of communication from what we humans can expect.

But, here again, we are looking at conjecture. We’re looking through the lenses of our imaginations. We are wishful-thinking our abstractions.

Watch this video of Dr Michio Kaku tackling this problem.
youtube.com/watch?v=YW_RF-HlmRg

Thanks; I will. I am not a great fan of Prof. Kaku, though.

Ok, but spiritual matter is not really matter - matter is a physical substance.
The soul is some kind of spiritual/non-physical substance.

In its widest sense - which does not denigrate from is original meaning (which is, “timber”)- it may be used as a place-holder for a more appropriate word, of which I have no thought of just now. And, it is not a non-sense juxtaposition of words. Spiritual matter is invisible matter. Not all matter is visible to us, is it? (Think: “electrons,” “quarks,” etc.)

Of course spiritual matter is not akin to electrons and quarks. But it is at least a matter of contemplation, the subject-matter which is being discussed, the subject matter of many books.

God bless,
jd