- May 28, 2018
- 14,259
- 6,350
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Of course. But not for God, who doesn't even need to figure anything out.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course. But not for God, who doesn't even need to figure anything out.Nothing is by chance, but there are things too complicated to figure out.
I agree, but there is a huge difference between speculating on a quantum vacuum (never mind to posit such a thing) —which is mere mechanical fact— as self-existent first cause, vs positing an omnipotent mind —a living being— as self-existent first cause.Or it could be that what we see is just a reflection of something deeper and non material.
Romans 1:20, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
If there is a God who created the universe then maybe the universe is just an expression of God. We intuit that as conscious beings belonging to something greater than the universe itself.
If there is a multiverse then it must have had a beginning. Lawrence Krauss thinks our universe came from nothing. A sort of nothingness that has always been there. But there was something in that nothingness which was the quantum vacuum. To say that this has always been there is more or less the same as saying God has always been there. So I think either way we end up at a point where we have to posit something as always being there.
Yes even a quantum void points to some Mind behind it.I agree, but there is a huge difference between speculating on a quantum vacuum (never mind to posit such a thing) —which is mere mechanical fact— as self-existent first cause, vs positing an omnipotent mind —a living being— as self-existent first cause.
What strikes me here, is that even that, if it is "science's final answer" (which I doubt it is) to explain existence, is in the end, a fabrication of the mind that refuses to give up and admit 'first cause with intent'. Even if there was a way beyond mere speculation, such as to prove it mathematically, without circular reasoning and without substitution of mathematical terms into mere assumptions, it still doesn't explain "beginning" nor "existence". Where did the principle of Quantum Void come from, even if it too is reality?Yes even a quantum void points to some Mind behind it.
God has impressed upon me many times that He is very exact and precise in everything. Just as the Universe is very exact and precise. Most of that for us is unconscious.Of course. But not for God, who doesn't even need to figure anything out.
The quantum void or so called empty space is the most fundamental aspect of reality for the materialist conception through Quantum Field Theory. This has been extended to before the beginning of our universe to explain how our universe came about by a quantum fluctuations. But even that is something that needs explaining. The quantum vacuum still contains something (energy) even if its cancelled out. So where did this come from.What strikes me here, is that even that, if it is "science's final answer" (which I doubt it is) to explain existence, is in the end, a fabrication of the mind that refuses to give up and admit 'first cause with intent'. Even if there was a way beyond mere speculation, such as to prove it mathematically, without circular reasoning and without substitution of mathematical terms into mere assumptions, it still doesn't explain "beginning" nor "existence". Where did the principle of Quantum Void come from, even if it too is reality?
I think we do have knowledge of the exact or finely tuned universe through our conscious experience of the universe. There are aspects of the universe beyond our comprehension that we may never know. But we intuitively know that the universe and life is not some accident or limited to mindless matter.God has impressed upon me many times that He is very exact and precise in everything. Just as the Universe is very exact and precise. Most of that for us is unconscious.
I think its hard to detach philosophy from the science. I don't think there is any measurement of reality from a position of nowhere but rather its always a position from somewhere. That being the subject. Science works within a paradigm which contains assumptions about reality, beliefs, and criterion as to how science is applied. In some ways you could say its form of groupthink rather than an open and neutral position on reality.Philosophical naturalism is a belief. So it could be called a kind of faith; but it's less a "faith in science" and more a belief in a kind of dogmatic naturalism--a belief about the nature of reality that is wholly contained within nature.
I think the problem is the line between what is natural and supernatural is blurred. There are some obvious distinctions like God/s being supernatural. But what about consciousness for example, or transcendental phenomena. I don't think the line is clear in many cases. There is a lot of conflicting evidence especially in the social sciences and biology (evolution) that don't fit the naturalistic, material and reductionist view.Because one can take the position of methodological naturalism without holding to naturalism as a philosophy. For science to be science it requires methodological naturalism; otherwise "gasoline engines work because of pixies" would be a valid "science".
But I think MN does say that there is no God or supernatural. It has to take that position so its inherent in the method. Thus to justify the scientists belief epistemically only that which can be scientifically verified counts (evidencialism). This is a metaphysical position because it is determining ontologically what counts as real or not.That means science is limited to only addressing naturalistic things--observations and hypotheses and experimentation and theories, the scientific method. So science can't say "God did it", not because science requires a lack of belief in God or what God can do; but because that's not science. Science can only be used to explain what can be observed of the natural order within the natural order itself. Thus requiring methodological naturalism.
The problem I see is that for MN to be justified it has to argue that reality is only Naturalistic. To defend the scientific position one has to argue for that position to be the only epistemic truth. Otherwise it cannot be justified because if there is something beyond or excluded from its equations then the equations are suspect because science has not considered all that may be of influence or causal which may influence the observations and findings.Philosophical naturalism is what takes that and argues that the entirety of reality must be contained within the natural.
I agree and science can help us understand Gods creation in a more detailed way. The big difference of course is that for a Christian this just brings awe as to how amazing God is to have done this regardless of the method. But the naturalistic and material view will assume and look for a naturalistic answer regardless of what the evidence indicates and never think that there is anything but.The Theist, however, can take methodological naturalism and recognize that it is itself an expression of the Divine will and work. God established nature to be the way it is, and science explores and observes and explains those observations. So science does not lead us to the answer of "God", God does provide motivation for many to do science--which is in a lot of ways exactly how modern science developed in the first place. Both in the Islamic and Christian worlds of the middle ages.
-CryptoLutheran
Agreed. And how did the separation of combined opposites occur? How does CHANGE occur? This is one of my fundamental questions, on a par with "how do particularities descend from homogeneity?"The quantum void or so called empty space is the most fundamental aspect of reality for the materialist conception through Quantum Field Theory. This has been extended to before the beginning of our universe to explain how our universe came about by a quantum fluctuations. But even that is something that needs explaining. The quantum vacuum still contains something (energy) even if its cancelled out. So where did this come from.
Yes. The nasty seduction this (and other, supposedly 'self-existent', infinitely regressive systems) poses is that it presents in many of the same terms as theistic creation (first cause with intent) presents. What it lacks, though, is intent, (vs purely mechanistic system).The multiverse is postulated or that our universe was born out of another universe which then needs explaining as this implies an infinite regression back to some beginning. Another idea is that the quantum void has always been there just like God has always been there which doesn't explain anything and is not science.
It is seductive too, to attribute the quality, "self-existent cause", to mere effect, and to consider each system of facts as its own fact, separate from other systems. This tendency in our thinking begins to oppose the 'Simplicity of God', in the way that we consider his attributes as separate qualities from each other —but I digress.The void before the Big bang has no time and space so the science breaks down and all is speculation. I think this is where philosophy comes in and we cannot detach ourselves from this equation. Something beyond material reality or at least beyond naturalistic conceptions is implied.
What is interesting is that in all these conceptions at the fundamental level there are no particles but waves of energy. Some force in the universe that is responsible for creating material reality which seems to be beyond our ideas of space, time and matter.
As you point out just because we can come up with ideas and mathematical equation to try and account for fundamental reality it doesn't account for the fundamental nature of what is going on. It only describes the behavior. So what is this energy we find in the universe and beyond. Where did it come from.
Can you elaborate on this so I can understand better what you mean.Agreed. And how did the separation of combined opposites occur? How does CHANGE occur? This is one of my fundamental questions, on a par with "how do particularities descend from homogeneity?"
Intent implies a mind and awareness and this implies a subject. I think this is what is lacking in mechanistic and reductive view. Science was designed initially to be a separate area of investigation from the role of the subjective consciousness. So the subject was taken out of the equation which made it easier to do quantitative science. But people thought back then that subjective consciousness was also real and deserved attention as to determining the qualitative and transcendent aspect of reality.Yes. The nasty seduction this (and other, supposedly 'self-existent', infinitely regressive systems) poses is that it presents in many of the same terms as theistic creation (first cause with intent) presents. What it lacks, though, is intent, (vs purely mechanistic system).
That is why I think the idea of Mind and consciousness being fundamental is simple and unifying. The ancient mystics have been telling us this for millennia. It can't all be woo lol. The problem with the reductive mechanistic view is that you have to explain everything in cold, meaningless facts.It is seductive too, to attribute the quality, "self-existent cause", to mere effect, and to consider each system of facts as its own fact, separate from other systems. This tendency in our thinking begins to oppose the 'Simplicity of God', in the way that we consider his attributes as separate qualities from each other —but I digress.
You quoted wrong, it says heavens-Well actually it is never stated in The Bible God created a universe, but it is stated again and again like it is stated in Genesis 1:1 God created heaven and earth. Too bad christians have let science, infect their understanding of God's creation describe in The Bible.
You referred to energies cancelled out in the quantum vacuum.Can you elaborate on this so I can understand better what you mean.
I like that very much. Good thoughts, well expressed and organized. Here's some thoughts what you say there brought to mind:Intent implies a mind and awareness and this implies a subject. I think this is what is lacking in mechanistic and reductive view. Science was designed initially to be a separate area of investigation from the role of the subjective consciousness. So the subject was taken out of the equation which made it easier to do quantitative science. But people thought back then that subjective consciousness was also real and deserved attention as to determining the qualitative and transcendent aspect of reality.
But as time went by science has taken over and the subjects experiences and agency was totally excluded and seen as a by product of the mechanistic process. Behavior was all due to fundamental physical processes and belief, intention and agency were not causal as far as evolution and reality were concerned.
But this has led to many anomalies that seem to point to agency being a powerful way of altering reality. The choices we make, the way we place ourselves within the world, the way we interact with nature are all connected and influence each other. A more reciprocal and constructive view rather than being passive subjects acted upon by outside forces. We are now finding that we cannot separate the subject from the equation and that we can make a difference in the world.
I think this may be the case with physics as well. Many say that Mined and consciousness are fundamental based on interpretations of quantum mechanics. This also implies agency, intention, awareness and choice, how we experience the world being real and causal and not just irrational beliefs.
If this is the case then it makes sense that the universe itself is fundamentally of Mind. That what we perceive of the objective world is a quantified reflection of something deeper and transcendent. Its not the material world that makes it real but the concepts, the invisible laws and principles that govern things. Just like consciousness may be a real force in the world it may be that the universe itself was born out of a greater Mind being Gods invisible power that is seen from what is made.
I know some will think this is unreal in itself but the thing is from what I understand there is science that supports this idea. Maybe not God or a god but of Mind and consciousness being fundamental to reality. I think this is the way forward, a new paradigm which may answer some hard problems that the scientific materialist view are facing.
Aye, Matey, there's the rub! But there is more to it than some general mind or general consciousness. I think it is very specific in hierarchy, God first, then his creatures, all in their order. And all 'within' his mind, in some way. But notice that as the concept of time fades into the background in these considerations, the relevance of cause-and-effect does not.That is why I think the idea of Mind and consciousness being fundamental is simple and unifying. The ancient mystics have been telling us this for millennia. It can't all be woo lol. The problem with the reductive mechanistic view is that you have to explain everything in cold, meaningless facts.
The experience of beauty or love is reduced to a 'thing' in itself, the firing of neurons and any experience is regarded as just a by product and of no real causal significance. You may think you have free will and can make a difference in the world but that's just what you have been programmed to think by deeper physical processes.
But our intuition tells us different, that we do and can make a difference in the world. We are part of the equation that makes things real and if we leave ourselves out then we will never understand what is going on and our place in the universe.
You quoted wrong, it says heavens
Exactly... but try to get an atheist to admit to that.But that is the problem. At somepoint there was nothing, no energy, no matter, no laws of science. So what caused things to exist?
To argue that matter has always existed means explaining how the finite can fit into the infinite.
-Well actually it is never stated in The Bible God created a universe, but it is stated again and again like it is stated in Genesis 1:1 God created heaven and earth. Too bad christians have let science, infect their understanding of God's creation describe in The Bible.
PLUSThis is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic. If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.
Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something. Thus GOD - from everlasting to everlasting.
The big bang doesn't work because - "nothing" can not produce an accident, even by accident. The big bang can not exist without the Elemental "LAWS" : formation, compression, combustion...etc. Who made the laws?
In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. What a breath of fresh air knowing that while we were laying in the dust of the earth GOD administered mouth to mouth and we became alive with a purpose - to express the righteousness of God to the whole creation.
Romans 8:1 19
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Halleluiah!
Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and fo | New King James Version (NKJV
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and fowww.bible.com
I apologize, yours was the first response I read with this particular post which you posted December the 22nd. If my memory is correct you said the Bible didn't state God created a universe but the heaven and the Earth.I am well familiar with the verses you posted from Colossians. Not sure of your point, without a comment from you stating the reasoning for your post.
I apologize, yours was the first response I read with this particular post which you posted December the 22nd. If my memory is correct you said the Bible didn't state God created a universe but the heaven and the Earth.
In the scripture I gave tells us God created everything visible and unvisible.
Men's definition of universe is basically saying all things that we see.
Definition of UNIVERSE
the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: such as; a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power; the world of human experience… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
Definition of heaven means basically the same thing and will cover things unseen when considering the abode place of God and angels.
/heaven-and-hell/what-is-heaven.htmlChristianity - The History, Beliefs, and Teachings of Faith in Jesus Christ
Learn all about the beliefs, facts, history and origin of Christianity. Featuring thousands of questionis and answers to help you understand the Bible and live a faith-filled life.www.christianity.com
And I just can't understand how the Bible doesn't say God created the universe in the English language even.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?