RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

unclemonkey -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 3:54:09 PM)

ORIGINAL:swan42
quote:

Somethings might be unknowable.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” – Romans 1:20

quote:

If we philosophically deduce there must be a creator, maybe his/her name is Zeus.

“Be still, and know that I am God: - Psalms 46:10a



drj11 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 3:55:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No. I generally follow the simple assumption (axiom) that is the logical starting point for most math: 1 = 1. Its worked out so far.


The question of course is why has it worked out so far if it is only, "in our minds"?


I would maintain that numbers are really a form of adjectives. They describe a quality, but do not themselves exist as observable objects. The color blue doesn't exist, except as a concept in our head. The specific wavelength of light that we call blue certainly does. The number 2 doesnt exist, except as a concept, but there exists a quality of a real world object(s) that we choose to describe as 2. (This is all starting to go back around full circle to Plato's forms...). We devised the language to match and identify what we observe, if that makes sense.



drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 3:57:11 PM)

quote:

quote:

You can count to four, right drj?

No. I generally follow the simple assumption (axiom) that is the logical starting point for most math: 1 = 1.
Oh dear, I was afraid of that. I guess I'll just have to make my money the old-fashioned way instead of preying off the warped realities of confused pagans posting drivel on Christian discussion boards.



hammurabi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 3:57:20 PM)

Jhud:Isn't that the whole point? The classic example is the candle. Light from a candle brightening a room is an effect in esse (in existence, not time) of the candle's flame. So the flame is a necessary efficient cause for the light. We consider the light being, and the candle Being. The argument seems to run that some say the flame is eternal (i.e., infinite in comparison to all finite comprehension); others say the flame must have a beginning. But we only know of the logical existence of the flame, and it must have infinity of power in relation to all being. On the other hand, you could argue the flame isn't eternal, but since it exists outside our temporal sequence of events, the efficient cause of all being's (flame's) nonexistence can be said to be contradictory, since we cannot concieve of its nonexistence.

At least, this is the simples way I understand it. I could very well be wrong.

quote:

Though, if something exists as a cause infinitely, and caused something that exists infinitely, has there even been a 'cause' to begin with?


As I understand it, it would be an infinite, immanent efficient cause. It has logical priority (is a priori), but temporally coextensive with existence (beings).



drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:01:35 PM)

quote:

As I understand it, it would be an infinite, immanent efficient cause. It has logical priority (is a priori), but temporally coextensive with existence (beings).
Forgive my philosophical ignorance (also, please recall that I'm recovering from a recent investment failure), but is this not precisely the definition of God?!



hammurabi -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:05:09 PM)

If you want God to be immanent. Other than that, I'm not sure exactly how causal infinitude includes the emotive aspects of God which are attributed to him. You could say God has infinite affective power, but not necessarily that this infinity includes the possession of anthropomorphic aspects (Will, Love, Peace, Goodness), only the ability to generate them. I'm not exactly sure. It seems that if you could pair causal arguments with ontological arguments, you would have a complete concept of God.

Can you elaborate?



Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:06:59 PM)

quote:

I would maintain that numbers are really a form of adjectives. They describe a quality, but do not themselves exist as observable objects. The color blue doesn't exist, except as a concept in our head. The specific wavelength of light that we call blue certainly does. The number 2 doesnt exist, except as a concept, but there exists a quality of a real world object(s) that we choose to describe as 2. (This is all starting to go back around full circle to Plato's forms...). We devised the language to match and identify what we observe, if that makes sense.


I think the problem is twofold – first there seems to be a fairly common understanding of numbers indicating it is fairly deeply rooted notion of mathematics in the human mind indicating it is something more than a derived description.

Secondly, the universe is amenable to objective mathematical description – meaning that we can describe precise events that occur mathematically with a high degree of precision every time. Adjectives aren’t particularly useful for such predictions.



unclemonkey -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:21:03 PM)

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
find me one thing in this universe that is independant of everything else in the universe.

Virtual particles.

We have been down this road before. Claiming that virtual particles are “something from nothing” is dishonest.
Claiming that they are “independent” of everything else is just as dishonest. Virtual particles ARE dependent on the high density energy of the quantum vacuum.



Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:34:59 PM)

quote:

We have been down this road before. Claiming that virtual particles are “something from nothing” is dishonest.
Claiming that they are “independent” of everything else is just as dishonest. Virtual particles ARE dependent on the high density energy of the quantum vacuum.


Yeah, it's sort of been hashed out already.

Just out of curiousty unk, do your friends and family (like mine) wonder question why you even know about virtual particles and the quantumm vacuum? [;)]



essentialsaltes -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:41:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

find me one thing in this universe that is independant of everything else in the universe.


quote:

Virtual particles.


They are dependent on energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum - not 'nothing'.


No, they are the energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

No incoming matter-energy fields connect to the vacuum bubble graphs; they come from nothing.



drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:44:14 PM)

quote:

If you want God to be immanent.
Sorry hammurabi, but what I want (or any other created human being wants) God to be is totally irrelevant to His True Essence. He is God and we are not! Indeed, Christianity is diametrically opposite all other "religions" in this exceedingly important issue. The Triune Creator God of Reality is defining us - we are NOT defining Him!

quote:

You could say God has infinite affective power, but not necessarily that this infinity includes the possession of anthropomorphic aspects (Will, Love, Peace, Goodness), only the ability to generate them. I'm not exactly sure.
With all due respect, hammurabi, you are not sure because you do not have the Holy Spirit to illumine you. Why is it any more valid to claim that God's characteristics include anthropomorphic aspects rather than our characteristics include deific aspects? After all, we are created in His Image!

quote:

Can you elaborate?
Well, I could but frankly, why should I? You would be a lot better served by reading Acts 17, Romans 1 and 1 Cor 1-3 for real Truth!



Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:52:33 PM)

quote:

No, they are the energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

No incoming matter-energy fields connect to the vacuum bubble graphs; they come from nothing.


No, they eminate in the quantum vacuum; that isn't 'nothing'.



swan42 -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:56:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

quote:

You can count to four, right drj?

No. I generally follow the simple assumption (axiom) that is the logical starting point for most math: 1 = 1.
Oh dear, I was afraid of that. I guess I'll just have to make my money the old-fashioned way instead of preying off the warped realities of confused pagans posting drivel on Christian discussion boards.


Christians rarely visit the Pagan discussion boards.. so this is the only place the two really communicate.



Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 4:58:49 PM)

quote:

Christians rarely visit the Pagan discussion boards.. so this is the only place the two really communicate.


Communicate? That may be a more optimistic description of what is happening than I would have used.



gluadys -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 5:00:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
God is not nothing, drj, according to most Christians!


True, but did God make the universe out of himself or out of nothing?



Jhud -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 5:15:05 PM)

quote:

True, but did God make the universe out of himself or out of nothing?


I am not quite sure how someone could answer that question precisely (if we knew 'how' the universe was made, much less how God made it, I suppose we would pretty much understand all there is to understand) but presumably God has power, which as much as it could be related to energy, is a source whereby matter could come into being.



drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 5:21:44 PM)

quote:

True, but did God make the universe out of himself or out of nothing?
Neither. God made the universe by and through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1:2 and Col 1:16).



gluadys -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 5:55:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

True, but did God make the universe out of himself or out of nothing?
Neither. God made the universe by and through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1:2 and Col 1:16).



"By" and "through" right. But not "out of" right?

So, "out of" what?



Method -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 7:26:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

Fact: What God has that no other person or thing has in the rest of existence, is the "Power of Being" within Himself. God exists, being dependant on nothing, and being caused by nothing.


I thought you were trying to prove this, not state it as fact and call it good. You might as well claim that it is a fact that Thor produces lightning and call it Philosophical Proof of Thor the Lightning Creator.

quote:

One molecule of anything is more than enough evidence to prove the existence of God, because if something "is" rather than "is not" then somehow, somewhere, something MUST exist that has the power of being.


Molecules are produced through natural means in particle accelerators all of the time. And these conditions are not special by any means. Supernovae have enough energy and pressure to produce molecules as well.

quote:

If nothing had the power of being, then nothing would exist... It's that simple.


I thought you were trying to prove this as well? Inserting your conclusion in the premises is called "begging the question" and is a well known logical fallacy.

quote:

Something out of nothing philosophy is as repugnant to Theology as it is to Science because it is utterly irrational.


Nobody, including scientists, are claiming that our Universe sprung out of nothing.

quote:

Aristotle understood that, Plato understood that, Augustin understood that, St. Thomas Aquanus understood that, Martin Luther understood that, John Calvin understood that, Jonathan Edwards understood that...


You need to show that they are right.



drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 7:30:30 PM)

quote:

So, "out of" what?
Wrong question! That's exactly what ex nihilo indicates. Divine creation is not an "out of" event or process, it's a "by and/or through" event or process.



Method -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/11/2008 7:58:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Sure it can... Just keep asking a scientist "OK, and before that what happened?" to every "answer" he may be able to give you as to the origins of anything and eventually we will get to the prime mover... Here, the questions of ultimate origin cannot be answered by secular means.


So you skip over all of the answers we do have and claim they are not legitimate because we can not explain everything? That seems a bit short sighted to me.

It seems to me that God is claimed to be just beyond the next horizon of knowledge. The problem is that when we cross these horizons the deities aren't there. Thor doesn't make lightning. Demons don't cause disease. And now we have God making the Universe. So what if we discover a non-deistic mechanism that produces new universe? Will God be just over the horizon, the source of these newly discovered mechanisms that produce universes?

Infinite regress is not a problem for science. In fact, this is what we have science for, discovering new and more fundamental mechanisms. The problem here is the infinite retreat of deities. As Stephen Weinberg put it,

One often hears that there is no conflict between science and religion. For instance, in a review of Johnson's book, Stephen Gould remarks that science and religion do not come into conflict, because `science treats factual reality, while religion treats [sic] human morality.' [Gould, S.J. "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge". Book Review of "Darwin on Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, Regnery Gateway: Washington, D.C., 1991, Scientific American, July 1992, pp.92-95, pp.94] On most things I tend to agree with Gould, but here I think he goes too far; the meaning of religion is defined by what religious people actually believe, and the great majority of the world's religious people would be surprised to learn that religion has nothing to do with factual reality. But Gould's view is widespread today among scientists and religious liberals. This seems to me to represent an important retreat of religion from positions it once occupied. Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete. (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)



gluadys -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 1:07:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

So, "out of" what?
Wrong question! That's exactly what ex nihilo indicates. Divine creation is not an "out of" event or process, it's a "by and/or through" event or process.


ex=out of
nihilo=nothing

I don't see any reference in the Latin to "by" or "through"

per=by. through

The fact is that "ex nihilo" is a matter of some theological importance. There are other religions in which it is an article of faith that the existence of the universe is a form of the existence of God. In the Advaita form of Hinduism, everything that exists is nothing other than God itself and the quest for salvation is the quest to realize experientially (not just intellectually) that one's self and Godself are identical (That art thou.)

Greek philosophy envisioned a universe that was not created by God but emanated from the Divine Being as a necessary overflow of the abundance of Divine Essence.

"creatio ex nihilo" is a denial of both of these doctrines. Creation may live and move and have its being in God, but it is not God, nor is it made of the essence of God. Creation is brought into being by and through the Word of God and its contingent being is sustained by the power of the Word at all times. Yet it is not God, nor of the same essence as God. It is certainly not, as suggested by Greek philosophy, a necessity. It exists solely because of the gratuitous choice of God to create.

Even the angels of God, as beings of pure spirit, are creations and separate in their being from the Being of God. Unlike the Son of God who is "of one substance with the Father".

So 'creatio ex nihilo" not only impinges on the Christian understanding of the nature of creation. It also has implications for the doctrine of the Trinity. Hence, from the standpoint of traditional Nicean dogma, I look askance at the current popularity of the slogan that "something does not come from nothing". I understand the motive behind it, but it would be better to say that in order for something to come from nothing a divine agent is necessary. If God cannot create out of nothing, only two options are left:

1. matter is also eternal---as assumed by ancient Greek philosophy and many modern scientists alike. The universe in some form has always existed and was not created by God, but merely shaped into its current form.

2. the universe is essentially an illusion --as assumed by Hindu/Buddhist and much New Age philosophy. The universe, fundamentally, IS God in a multiplicity of forms and God never truly created anything at all.

The Church's adoption of "creatio ex nihilo" denies both of these and so is an important doctrine to uphold in its traditional formulation.



PromiseLander -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 8:02:14 AM)

Wow... Why do so many rabbit trails get blazed when talking about creation? OK, to get us back on track with the original post... (and in words we can all understand)

The process is like this: Everything that exists, does so because it is dependant upon something else. Something happened to cause it's existence. Now work backwards - I exist becuase of my parents, my parents existed because of their parents, ect... Do this kind of process with anything. Eventually, we will come to the very first and smallest particle of anything - what caused it? Logic and reason dictates that there MUST have been a prime mover. There MUST have been something that was dependant upon nothing to be able to cause the existence of matter that is dependant on something else. Without this something that is dependant on nothing, nothing could have come into being. (Obviously because we know that something cannot come from nothing - save from the causation of God.) God made what is visible out of the invisible. God created everything from nothing. God is the prime mover as he has the Power of Being within Himself.

Now, science says: "How can you invoke 'god' into a situation simply because we don't have an answer?" What a lame excuse! Like Paul at the Areopogus (I hate spelling that word) when he noticed an altar to "an unknown god" What you are claiming as unknown, I am claiming to you as known!



Veritas -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 9:48:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No, they are the energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

No incoming matter-energy fields connect to the vacuum bubble graphs; they come from nothing.


No, they eminate in the quantum vacuum; that isn't 'nothing'.

The vacuum is empty space. Particles are created spontaneously in the vacuum. The vacuum is nothing but empty space.



drmark -> RE: Philisophical proof of God the Creator (6/12/2008 10:09:25 AM)

quote:

The Church's adoption of "creatio ex nihilo" denies both of these and so is an important doctrine to uphold in its traditional formulation.
So, what's your point? You've presented a lovely dissertation (rabbit trail), but it does nothing to change the Truth of John 1:3 and Col 1:16. Creation ex nihilo is all about by and through. Do you think the ECFs did not understand the word nihilo?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI