PDA

View Full Version : On the Universe as A Creation of God, the Supreme Spirit Being



Tryggvi
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Why do Catholics believe that the universe and all life in it was created by, and is governed by, an all-powerful Spirit Being called God? What actual proof is there of God's existence and omnipotence?

Catholics believe that the universe is the creation, and the exclusive dominion, of an infinitely powerful Spirit Being, called God, because the evidence which points to that conclusion is so overwhelming that there is no room left for even the slightest vestige of doubt. First, there is the evidence of logic. Through the process of simple mathematical-type reasoning, man inevitably comes face to face with certain indisputable principles: Everything has a cause; nothing can bring itself into existence. Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but ultimately there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause we call ``God.''
Logics: The basics ;)

1. In order for matter to exist, the universe must exist.
2. Without universe no matter.
3. Without matter no time (that's how time is defined).
4. Without time no cause and effect.
5. Without cause and effect the universe cannot be the effect of a cause.
6. From 1. - 5. we conclude that God cannot be the cause of the universe.

;P

Milesian
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 11:50 AM
Logics: The basics ;)

1. In order for matter to exist, the universe must exist.
2. Without universe no matter.
3. Without matter no time (that's how time is defined).
4. Without time no cause and effect.
5. Without cause and effect the universe cannot be the effect of a cause.
6. From 1. - 5. we conclude that God cannot be the cause of the universe.

;P

Wow, it took you only several seconds to pounce. Your hatred, sorry "contempt" of Christianity knows no bounds. Perhaps I should just become a Moslem to get an easy life here from you :D

I believe your logic to be flawed
I would think it follows that if we ask ourselves the origin of the universe we must come to one of two conclusions.

i) That there was ultimately a singular cause which brought everything else into existence.

ii) That there was no cause and the universe has existed forever

Current science seems to favour the former, therefore I will leave the latter for the moment.
Now if we believe that there was an original cause for the universe, which existed before everything else, then there could be no cause of this first. In effect, that which brought all else into existence is an Uncaused Caused. Current science also agrees, it calls it's Uncaused Cause - The Big Bang.
Christians call it God ;)

Tryggvi
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 11:58 AM
Wow, it took you only several seconds to pounce. Your hatred, sorry "contempt" of Christianity knows no bounds. Perhaps I should just become a Moslem to get an easy life here from you :D That would help. You'd get lots of rep points from me and ladygoeth33, too. ;)


I believe your logic to be flawed Ja? In which step is the flaw? ;)


Now if we believe that there was an original cause for the universe, which existed before everything else ...And what did god do all the infinite time before he got bored and created the universe and angels as helpers (albeit he is omnipotent and needs no help)? ;)

Milesian
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 12:04 PM
That would help. You'd get lots of rep points from me and ladygoeth33, too. ;)

I'm happy with my own desert religion, thanks ;)




And what did god do all the infinite time before he got bored and created the universe and angels as helpers (albeit he is omnipotent and needs no help)? ;)

Your answered yourself in Step 3. Without matter, there is no time, apparantly ;)

Tryggvi
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 12:21 PM
Your answered yourself in Step 3. Without matter, there is no time, apparantly ;)And without time no cause and effect. ;)

Milesian
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 12:32 PM
And without time no cause and effect. ;)

Therefore, without cause and effect, there can be no time?
But that is obviously not so, I can see my watch ticking, I see people age, I see the seasons come and go, we can observe the law of Entropy at work. Therefore the universe runs one way through time, and time exists, therefore one concludes that your premise is faulty :)

Milesian
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 12:41 PM
Actually, where your logic makes the mistake is at point 1.
God is not corporeal, therefore matter is not a prerequisite, therefore the chain of points is irrelevant ;)

Tryggvi
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Therefore, without cause and effect, there can be no time?No, the e contrario conclusion would be fallacious.

Compare:

1. Without water no hu÷man life.
2. Without human life no water (fallacious).

1. Without Catholics no Holy Inquisition.
2. Without Holy Inquisition no Catholics (fallacious).

Similarly:

1. Without time no cause and effect.
2. Without cause and effect no time (fallacious).

Milesian
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 03:58 PM
No, the e contrario conclusion would be fallacious.

Compare:

1. Without water no hu÷man life.
2. Without human life no water (fallacious).

1. Without Catholics no Holy Inquisition.
2. Without Holy Inquisition no Catholics (fallacious).

Similarly:

1. Without time no cause and effect.
2. Without cause and effect no time (fallacious).

Yes, that is actually quite correct, Njord.
I noticed that after I re-read the post the reasoning of that particular post was incorrect.
However, my following post remarked that as God is not composed of matter, then the flow of points fall at the first hurdle as it does not apply

Tryggvi
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 04:08 PM
Actually, where your logic makes the mistake is at point 1.
God is not corporeal... Yes, that's one of the strongest arguments against the existence of an omniscient god.

An omniscient god should have physical knowledge but being immaterial, it cannot.

Consequently, the Christian god either doesn't exist, or it is not omniscient. Note that Odin, the allfather of our rational, Germanic ancestors, isn't omniscient. He had to earn his knowledge the hard way, like everyone else. ;)

bocian
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 04:12 PM
I'm torn.

What if time does not exist?

Watching your watch tick or people growing old is a human way of understanding the constant state of flux that our Universe is in. The " Universe " has always existed in a never ending nor ever beginning circle which constantly "changes" yet never begins or ends. Start and End is a primitive human concept. From dust we came and to dust we will return.

On the other hand,

How do we explain consciousness, compassion?

Does the " Big Bang " not occur every time a new life is brought into this world?


Just my random thoughts, however we are so insignificant in the bigger picture that having Faith might be a good thing in the long run.;)

I am Catholic, there is nothing wrong with that.

Milesian
Sunday, February 15th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Yes, that's one of the strongest arguments against the existence of an omniscient god.

An omniscient god should have physical knowledge but being immaterial, it cannot.

Consequently, the Christian god either doesn't exist, or it is not omniscient. Note that Odin, the allfather of our rational, Germanic ancestors, isn't omniscient. He had to earn his knowledge the hard way, like everyone else. ;)


Not quite ;)
He was incarnated into flesh in the 2nd person of the Trinity, ie Jesus.
Jesus had two natures, human and divine. Hence he was able to experience corporal reality in all it's points, even it's weaknesses, as we see when Satan tries to tempt him on three occasions.

Regardless it does not necessarily follow that a non-corporeal God cannot have corporeal knowledge, that statement in itself is fallacious.
If he is omniscient, he would know all. He would not have to be something in order to understand it, I would presume that if he created it, he would understand it as well as anyone ;)

cosmocreator
Wednesday, March 10th, 2004, 07:57 AM
Logics: The basics ;)

1. In order for matter to exist, the universe must exist.
2. Without universe no matter.
3. Without matter no time (that's how time is defined).
4. Without time no cause and effect.
5. Without cause and effect the universe cannot be the effect of a cause.
6. From 1. - 5. we conclude that God cannot be the cause of the universe.

;P


The error is not in your logic but in your precepts.

Matter is not dependent on the universe to exist. "Universe" is an abstraction which is inclusive of all things including matter and time. Matter/energy is not dependent on the universe existing any more than a tree is dependent on a forest. It is a group of trees that make the abstraction "forest" possible. Matter/energy is a mode of existence of what I call the Creator. Humans like to view things with a being and an end. Change is constant. This idea precludes the fundamentals of the thing doing the changing. An analogy would be how putty can be shaped and molded but the putty always remains putty. Time is a conscious perception of change. The Creator, as the putty, is timeless itself.