Right, Then...

Refractive

New member
You believe the universe is eternal and non-contingent? I'd say that's most obviously false, from everyday experience to the big bang. Why did He have to exist from somewhere? Are you claiming that everything which exists must have been created?
:e4e:
If "universe" is defined as a word meaning "everything" then it is eternal, as it includes, well, everything. Like Heaven. The big bang, presuming it happened as they posit, altered the universe, and those alterations may be transient, but the universe cannot be.
 

zippy2006

New member
If "universe" is defined as a word meaning "everything" then it is eternal, as it includes, well, everything. Like Heaven. The big bang, presuming it happened as they posit, altered the universe, and those alterations may be transient, but the universe cannot be.

That's not what the universe means though, and even your assertion that "everything is eternal" seems obviously false. In any case, no one's definition of universe seems to include that which is supernatural (neither the ex nihilo Christian nor the atheist).

For Catholics, ex nihilo is doctrinal and the universe is ontologically transient:


327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."

 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
...A theology forum might have slightly less blind thinkers than a christian one, you see.
I see a bias you might want to consider and work on. Everyone with a context (and everyone has one) has a blind spot, depending on your perspective.

The forum isn't what I expected, but it may be better.
It has good and bad days and interesting, engaging people, along with people bent on standing in the public square, loudly, with no intent to do more than sneer and shout. And that's from either side of the coin.

So, I'm a high schooler of abnormal thinking, and have found it more and more difficult to believe in God, especially the one of the Bible.
Then I'd say something else is driving you. It's no more or less difficult to believe in God. Probability doesn't play into it. And you either have faith in God or you don't, since that faith is an expression of love and trust. Those two things don't come with reservation. You don't "mostly" love someone or trust them "now and then."

I really don't want to lose the gift the Bible promises, and now I rely on another of its promises that those who seek him will find him.
The real gift of God is in relation and its impact on your daily life and spiritual maturation.

The evidence against Him seems huge, but I lay my last vestiges of hope in you guys (not to sound dramatic).
What evidence against? That the rain falls on the just and unjust alike? That there's suffering in a world of will? Or perhaps the larger suffering of nature that sees birth defects cancers in play. Suffering in all its forms gives and has given numerous people a great deal of trouble over the history of considering this problem. There are any number of answers you might find more or less satisfying, but it will come back, as it always must, to your foundation, your context.

Regardless, I've promised myself to always keep hoping and searching (though never suspending reason) for God throughout my life, in faith in this promise. I'm here to see how much you guys might help in said search.
I wasn't really where you are at your age, being a confirmed atheist at that point in my life and for some time thereafter...but I was searching for as much of the truth about life and the best context for being that I could wrap my noggin around. It eventually led to a surprising conversion...you appear to be ahead of my understanding at your age in your focus and openness to God. Perhaps you won't have so very far to go then. I'll add whatever I can to assist you in whatever way I can.

I assume that I won't need to account for all the sources of my disbelief in one post, nor give my life's story, so I'll stop the intro here.
No, you have this part right. Take your time. There are a great many people here with a great deal of experience, education, and patience...and there are others who...but you'll figure them out for yourself in short enough order.

Welcome. :e4e: As for reading...I'd say Lewis and Peck are fine starting points. They're accessible authors who are more interested in a good conversation with their reader than in making cold academic points that require a great breadth of additional reading. M. Scott Peck wrote "The Road Less Traveled" just as he was transitioning into Christian awareness. A good read. His "People of the Lie" is a fine study of evil...Lewis' "Mere Christianity" is a worthwhile intro.

If you like philosophical leanings, try Boethius and "The Consolation of Philosophy". "The Practice of the Presence of God", available online for free, is another interesting study in a life aimed at relation with God. It's very short, but has a good bit of worthwhile advice in it.
 

Refractive

New member
That's not what the universe means though, and even your assertion that "everything is eternal" seems obviously false. In any case, no one's definition of universe seems to include that which is supernatural (neither the ex nihilo Christian nor the atheist).
Mine does. I'm pretty sure I never said "everything" was eternal. T-rex: not eternal.

I think the supernatural is part of Creation, but I don't like the word, anyway, it's associated with vampires and ghost "whisperers." ew

I think it makes people grow up thinking God and the life to come are the same as the North Pole and Neverland or something. It's not magic. Padre Pio walked over the heads of the crowd to get to the confessional. Someone asked him how he did it. He said, "It's just like walking on the floor." He knew how to do what we do not.

We "exchange spiritual goods" with that part of the Universe we call the Kingdom of God. That's real stuff, even if we have a hard time quantifying it. Jesus and Mary, all the Saints, they are real, they are someplace.
 

zippy2006

New member
Mine does. I'm pretty sure I never said "everything" was eternal. T-rex: not eternal.

You said the universe means everything and the universe is eternal.

I think the supernatural is part of Creation, but I don't like the word, anyway, it's associated with vampires and ghost "whisperers." ew

I think it makes people grow up thinking God and the life to come are the same as the North Pole and Neverland or something. It's not magic. Padre Pio walked over the heads of the crowd to get to the confessional. Someone asked him how he did it. He said, "It's just like walking on the floor." He knew how to do what we do not.

We "exchange spiritual goods" with that part of the Universe we call the Kingdom of God. That's real stuff, even if we have a hard time quantifying it. Jesus and Mary, all the Saints, they are real, they are someplace.

The supernatural is simply God and grace.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
He was the first to point out the First Mover. Just sayin'

No, he wasn't. Plato uses a kind of first mover argument in the Laws. The idea that God was the "first mover" goes back to the Presocratics (of particular interest, see Xenophanes and Anaxogoras).
 

ICameBack

New member
No, he wasn't. Plato uses a kind of first mover argument in the Laws. The idea that God was the "first mover" goes back to the Presocratics (of particular interest, see Xenophanes and Anaxogoras).

Aahhh, you are correct. I've been out of school for too many years, forgive me.
 

El DLo

New member
Why? :chuckle:

There is lots of philosophical and metaphysical substance behind the concept of God which shows your question to be a category error, but in the end Lennox's simple point is correct: all you are doing is claiming that we believe in a created God when that's simply not what we believe in. :idunno:

You believe the universe is eternal and non-contingent? I'd say that's most obviously false, from everyday experience to the big bang. Why did He have to exist from somewhere? Are you claiming that everything which exists must have been created?


:e4e:

I'm not saying everything which exists must have been created, but I am questioning why it's perfectly valid to shun the notion that the universe could be eternal while simultaneously proposing that God is.

It's not the logical flaw that irritates me, but the double standard, of which no one seems to be accounting. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Since the universe governs the laws of physics, then why is it impossible for it to exist outside of them? Assuming that physics is to the universe like gravity is to Earth, then it's perfectly feasible for the universe to be eternal.
 

zippy2006

New member
I'm not saying everything which exists must have been created, but I am questioning why it's perfectly valid to shun the notion that the universe could be eternal while simultaneously proposing that God is.

It's not the logical flaw that irritates me, but the double standard, of which no one seems to be accounting. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Since the universe governs the laws of physics, then why is it impossible for it to exist outside of them? Assuming that physics is to the universe like gravity is to Earth, then it's perfectly feasible for the universe to be eternal.

These are a few reasons the universe is not believed to be eternal:

1. The law of thermodynamics
2. The big bang
3. The Kalam cosmological argument
4. An argument from contingency. Every single thing we have ever seen in the universe is contingent. If every part of the universe is contingent, then the universe as a whole cannot be non-contingent.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
These are a few reasons the universe is not believed to be eternal:

1. The law of thermodynamics
2. The big bang
3. The Kalam cosmological argument
4. An argument from contingency. Every single thing we have ever seen in the universe is contingent. If every part of the universe is contingent, then the universe as a whole cannot be non-contingent.
But is all of this really Necessary? :plain: :eek:
 

Refractive

New member
You said the universe means everything and the universe is eternal.
I had to follow the links back. Okay, yes, if I define "Universe" as all that exists, then it's eternal. But all the configurations of it are not. So things get to go extinct, or burn up. To me, the difference is: Time is relative and Eternity is Absolute.

The supernatural is simply God and grace.
To you. Maybe to a lot of people. To others the word connotes darkness and evil and magical powers, as in the TV show of the same name. The Church also uses the word to describe phenomena that are not God or grace, as in possessions.

I just think the word carries a lot of cultural baggage. Soon, science will start to understand these things, now that they have discovered part of the Universe is nontemporal and nonlocal, they are ineluctably going to find Eternity, not as a myth or magic place, but as a mode of existence and finally figure out that consciousness is not generated by a biological process.

I personally like TU for temporal portion of the universe and NU for the nontemporal. But then, they never call me and ask me to name anything. :sigh:
 

Refractive

New member
Since the universe governs the laws of physics, then why is it impossible for it to exist outside of them?
I think it's the other way around.
Assuming that physics is to the universe like gravity is to Earth, then it's perfectly feasible for the universe to be eternal.
But it isn't. Gravity is a universal concept. Physics is a science that studies the way stuff interacts. Gravity is one of the four fundamental universal forces in what is called the "known" universe, the others are electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions.

So, is this relative domain eternal? Well, if you analyze everything down, you'll actually find out there actually isn't anything here at all. Which is weird and why quantum physicists all secretly drink a lot. One day they'll figure out that the nothingness is really a whole lotta somethingness and will all feel better. :chuckle:
 

zippy2006

New member
You said the universe means everything and the universe is eternal.
I had to follow the links back. Okay, yes, if I define "Universe" as all that exists, then it's eternal. But all the configurations of it are not. So things get to go extinct, or burn up. To me, the difference is: Time is relative and Eternity is Absolute.

I don't really follow this.

To you. Maybe to a lot of people. To others the word connotes darkness and evil and magical powers, as in the TV show of the same name. The Church also uses the word to describe phenomena that are not God or grace, as in possessions.

I just think the word carries a lot of cultural baggage. Soon, science will start to understand these things, now that they have discovered part of the Universe is nontemporal and nonlocal, they are ineluctably going to find Eternity, not as a myth or magic place, but as a mode of existence and finally figure out that consciousness is not generated by a biological process.

I personally like TU for temporal portion of the universe and NU for the nontemporal. But then, they never call me and ask me to name anything. :sigh:

But since I was the one using the term, it seems that my intended use is rather important. Of course it carries baggage, but the point is that the universe isn't generally meant to include God. If we use the universe to describe "everything" then the word becomes meaningless in a sense.
 

zippy2006

New member
You know what? You're right.

mea culpa

Don't find that often on TOL :cheers:

I am cautious of the term as well, and often try to give further clarification which would have probably been helpful in the first place. The important thing is to make sure we don't go against ex nihilo, which is a rather important doctrine imo. No rep left for you atm :e4e:
 
Top