Is God and His works perfect?

Is God and His works perfect?

I was a non believer at one time and enjoyed winning debates with believers using the K J Bible against them. Paradoxically, it was by knowing this Bible and interpreting it my way that lead me to find God.

I had determined that if there was a God at all, then whatever he had created had to be perfect and that that
This perfection would maintain itself over time. Never backsliding to imperfection.

God could never look down on earth and say, oops what the hell happened to my perfect world, it was good and now look at it, imperfect.
His will is supreme and not even a world of humans could collectively thwart His will with theirs.

I began to see this perfection that had to be here even with evils and sins and woes and that is when I found God. I went into the spirit, as the ancients used to say and God showed me the pain and pleasure of knowing that He was actually there.

I am not sure yet if it is the Christian God or not because I see the Bible as a consolidation of the then known religions. A bit from one and a bit from another.

The God I found is one of infinite love for humanity. He does not kill us or otherwise interfere but is there for those who seek.

He does not match the God that literal readers of scripture know.
That literal God, if the old testament is believed as the WORD does not have infinite love for man because He tends to kill them quite often. Sodom, Noah’s flood and many other times and places.

I find it strange that literal readers do not take this scripture literally.
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.


They see babies being born as already stained with sin.
If perfect and having a sin nature is part of perfection, and I think it is then well and good. If not then you would have to explain why God would create imperfect souls and natures for us.

Most literal reader though do not see this world as good even though, in Eden, God looked down and saw that the earth was good even with Satan there as the talking serpent.
Why God allowed Satan there is debatable but regardless of this, he was there for literal readers.

Imperfection cannot flow out of perfection. A perfect stream will not give poison water.
Perfection flows from perfection and imperfection flows from imperfection.

I see God’s universe as perfect.
I should give you my definition of perfect now to save some time.
Some people see or use that word to denote a finish and complete product.
I do not and if I may, God does not.
In the beginning God was alone and perfect. He then began to add to His universe. Evolution is change so since the changes He began with, did not cause a lose of perfection, but moved it to a new level, I say that perfection is now perfection in evolution. Always perfect but like the U S constitution uses the term, moving to a more perfect state. I also do not see a schism between Darwin’s evolution and God. God began it and Darwin named it. This shows my thoughts on a six day creation but that too is a different issue.

My question then is,
Do you see God’s universe as perfection in evolution, or,
Do you see God’s initial perfection gone and replaced by imperfection?

Is God still looking down with a smile as His perfection continues to evolve over never ending time as befits a God of perfect works, or
Is God looking down and saying, oops, what happened to my perfect universe and world. It backslid.

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need render. To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I do not include this for debate here but only to show how strongly I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
My question then is,
Do you see God’s universe as perfection in evolution, or,
Do you see God’s initial perfection gone and replaced by imperfection?

In my opinion, the fundamental characteristics and laws of nature represent a form of perfection. E=MC2, the fundamentals of Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Conservation of Energy, etc., all, point to a mathematical perfection that is the foundation of our universe. At its most fundamental level, reality IS perfect. If it were not for this, you and I would not be having this conversation, which is ultimately based on the predictability of mathematics, energy, electronics and chemistry. Life itself would not exist if these laws were not perfect, as the atoms of your fingers would fly apart making it pretty tough to type...

At a cosmic scale, we see perfection as well. The Earth follows a predictable path in the Solar System, and the Solar System in the Galaxy, and the Galaxy in the Universe. The orbits of all of these decay according to predictable laws. Stars ignite, burn and die according to strict laws that can be modeled with mathematics and science. Time flows according to a predetermined set of laws that are influenced by gravity with mathematical precision. If it were not for this, your GPS would never help you find your way home at night.

So, where does imperfection come in? Life...

I work in the field of microbiology. I see evolution everyday. Unlike, chemistry, electronics or physics, life is unpredictable. My personal explanation for this is Free Will. You see, even animals have some amount of free will. Anyone who has a dog, can tell you they do make choices, they think things through to some extent. It is from these choices that consequences occur. God does not control these choices or consequences because, He/She gave life free will. Imperfection comes from life itself.

Of course, you will next point to natural disasters and evolution. But, even here there are natural laws that cause the disturbance of life or the DNA which defines it. Life may influence some of these, with things like global warming, etc. But, ultimately, when you look at the mathematics of the event, it will be predictable and sublime. The only variable is life. Life is affected, because of where it was placed or chose to exist. Evolution, is the mixing of the sublime with free will resulting in the adaption of life to it's environment, according to perfect mathematical principles, survival of the fittest. MRSA and other antibiotic resistant organisms, pay testimony to this melding of perfection with free will.

So the short answer, is yes God created a perfect Universe. As part of this creation, he gave life His power of free will. Without Free Will, the universe would be perfect, but, this would be a pretty boring universe, which is not what I think God was after...

Now, if I put a Gnostic spin on this, I have to say that the God I am referring to here is The Father, not the Demiurge who used these perfect laws to create the matter in this Universe from the energy and laws emanated from The Father. We, today, can do the same thing by converting matter to/from energy, manipulating DNA to create new life, etc. using the laws established by The Father.

Thanks for that.

That would mean that God/The Father knew He was ending the perfection of the universe by creating life.

Where does he now reside and where is the Demiurge and did the demiurge have a choice in all of this?

Who’s in charge?

So do you think that the universe would be perfect if God rescinded life and or free will or both?

Where in life, animal as well as cellular, does free will begin? How far down the food chain?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
That would mean that God/The Father knew He was ending the perfection of the universe by creating life.
Where does he now reside and where is the Demiurge and did the demiurge have a choice in all of this?
Who’s in charge?
So do you think that the universe would be perfect if God rescinded life and or free will or both?
Where in life, animal as well as cellular, does free will begin? How far down the food chain?

These are the questions that have driven philosophers for millennia.

When you begin to apply logic to the concepts of free will and what God knows, you hit upon several paradoxes.

To begin this discussion, we postulate that God is unlimited. That is God is omnipotent, all powerful, omniscient, all knowing, and omnipresent, all present. From our perception, we postulate that we control our choices and have free will. With this starting point we quickly run into our first paradox, free will vs. God's omniscience.

If God is omniscient, then He knows at the moment we are conceived, that is, thought about by God, all of the choices we will make. If God already knows our choices, then how can we make a choice different than what God conceived? This would seem to be predetermination, not free will. If God does not know what our choices will be, then He is not omniscient. Thus the first paradox...

The next paradox is related to what God knows about our existence. Just as one who is limited (us) cannot understand and know that which is unlimited (God), what is unlimited (God) cannot know that which is limited (us) without becoming limited by this knowledge. This causes a paradox, that God cannot know us and we cannot know God.

So, where do we look for answers to these paradoxes? Science...

In Quantum Theory we find a concept called the Mutiverse. The basic concept is that everything that can happen, does happen, along parallel realities. Only when one observes the system in a particular reality or universe, does the observer see the outcome in his/her universe. This is the basic principle behind the quantum state computers currently being developed by IBM and others. In effect this computer will be able to compute in all these parallel worlds at once, and combine the results to get the output. Whether or not these are real universes or just 'ghostly potential' is debatable. However, research has shown they exist, in principle.

God is often referred to as 'Pure Potential'. This could be explained as the multiverse of all possible choices and results. There are an infinite number of parallel universes each reflecting a different possible combination of quantum possibilities or choices. God cannot interact at the individual universe level without becoming an observer and thus limiting His/Her own potential. As such, He/She can only conceive of reality as the sum of all potential universes, aka, the multiverse, which is unlimited, so is knowable only by God.

OK, so back to free will. When we are conceived by God, our concept, in the mind of God, includes all of the possibilities and/or choices made by our self and everyone/everything around us. God sees us as the sum of all our potential choices without regard to any particular set of choices. The multiverse of options came into being upon creation and we now navigate this multiverse through our free will. To God, we made every choice that was possible. As the observer in our life, our soul, sees the path we actually chose. However, to God it makes no difference which we chose because He only sees us from the aspect of the sum of our potential which is infinite.

So, where does salvation, sin, and all the rest come in if God doesn't know or care?

The Multiverse represents all of the potential of God. Each Spark (us) explores a particular set of possibilities and choices, a universe. We all have a path in the Multiverse that leads to rejoining with God. However, our choices are what navigate us toward or away from this destination. The three path's provided by Yehosua, Gnosis, Faith and Good Works, are guides that help us find the escape route from the Multiverse. Sin pushes us away from the path, back into the labyrinth of the Multiverse, and away from God.

Once we escape the Multiverse, the Spark, that was limited and the observer, will again become infinite and rejoin with God. In my opinion, this is how God is exploring His/Her own existence. God is the Ultimate Seeker.

With this background, let's explore your questions...

Greatest I am wrote:
That would mean that God/The Father knew He was ending the perfection of the universe by creating life.

No, perfection never ended. If you consider 'perfection' as that which is ultimately consistent and predictable, then the Universe is perfect. We simply can't look at the multiverse to see this fact. We only see one path, if you could see all potential we would see perfection.

Greatest I am wrote:
Where does he now reside and where is the Demiurge and did the demiurge have a choice in all of this?

God is everywhere. God is the multiverse. The Demiurge, as a myth, may or may not exist. But if it does, it is in the multiverse with us. It is one of the possible choices in the multiverse. There are also universes where the demiurge does not exist just as there are realities where we do not exist nor our Universe itself.

Greatest I am wrote:
Who’s in charge?

Our reality is the sum of all of the choices by all of the quantum events in our universe. So, we are responsible only for our choices and impacted by the other realities around us. Ultimately, we choose which universe we exist in by our choices, but there are a limited number of universes where we exist because of the quantum prerequisites for our existence.

Greatest I am wrote:
So do you think that the universe would be perfect if God rescinded life and or free will or both?

In this event, the options available would be only one. Only one universe in the multiverse would exist, and this would have to be God. So it would be perfect.

Greatest I am wrote:
Where in life, animal as well as cellular, does free will begin? How far down the food chain?

Thought is a quantum activity. Free will comes at the quantum level. Thought is the basis of this. So that which has thought at a quantum level has free will.

One footnote... When I say that there are universes where we do not exist, this does not limit our possibilities. Not existing is just as much a possibility as existing...

Because of the nature of the infinite, while there are universes where we exist and universes where we do not. There is actually an infinite number of both. Just hard to explain...

seekerjuan wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
That would mean that God/The Father knew He was ending the perfection of the universe by creating life.
Where does he now reside and where is the Demiurge and did the demiurge have a choice in all of this?
Who’s in charge?
So do you think that the universe would be perfect if God rescinded life and or free will or both?
Where in life, animal as well as cellular, does free will begin? How far down the food chain?

These are the questions that have driven philosophers for millennia.

When you begin to apply logic to the concepts of free will and what God knows, you hit upon several paradoxes.

To begin this discussion, we postulate that God is unlimited. That is God is omnipotent, all powerful, omniscient, all knowing, and omnipresent, all present. From our perception, we postulate that we control our choices and have free will. With this starting point we quickly run into our first paradox, free will vs. God's omniscience.

If God is omniscient, then He knows at the moment we are conceived, that is, thought about by God, all of the choices we will make. If God already knows our choices, then how can we make a choice different than what God conceived? This would seem to be predetermination, not free will. If God does not know what our choices will be, then He is not omniscient. Thus the first paradox...

The next paradox is related to what God knows about our existence. Just as one who is limited (us) cannot understand and know that which is unlimited (God), what is unlimited (God) cannot know that which is limited (us) without becoming limited by this knowledge. This causes a paradox, that God cannot know us and we cannot know God.

So, where do we look for answers to these paradoxes? Science...

In Quantum Theory we find a concept called the Mutiverse. The basic concept is that everything that can happen, does happen, along parallel realities. Only when one observes the system in a particular reality or universe, does the observer see the outcome in his/her universe. This is the basic principle behind the quantum state computers currently being developed by IBM and others. In effect this computer will be able to compute in all these parallel worlds at once, and combine the results to get the output. Whether or not these are real universes or just 'ghostly potential' is debatable. However, research has shown they exist, in principle.

God is often referred to as 'Pure Potential'. This could be explained as the multiverse of all possible choices and results. There are an infinite number of parallel universes each reflecting a different possible combination of quantum possibilities or choices. God cannot interact at the individual universe level without becoming an observer and thus limiting His/Her own potential. As such, He/She can only conceive of reality as the sum of all potential universes, aka, the multiverse, which is unlimited, so is knowable only by God.

OK, so back to free will. When we are conceived by God, our concept, in the mind of God, includes all of the possibilities and/or choices made by our self and everyone/everything around us. God sees us as the sum of all our potential choices without regard to any particular set of choices. The multiverse of options came into being upon creation and we now navigate this multiverse through our free will. To God, we made every choice that was possible. As the observer in our life, our soul, sees the path we actually chose. However, to God it makes no difference which we chose because He only sees us from the aspect of the sum of our potential which is infinite.

So, where does salvation, sin, and all the rest come in if God doesn't know or care?

These come from man's own insecurity. A wish list for our comfort. I am saved, I am saved, yippee.

You create paradox yourself by giving God unproven attributes.

You say that science has proven in smething existing in principle. They have proven the priciple exists only. they have not proven it is right or that what the principle points to has any reality.

Reality has importance and truth. Pinciples are not important till proven.

We cannot know if any other universes exist until we find one. The rest is just speculation.

Regards
DL

Reality has importance and truth. Pinciples are not important till proven.

You are exactly correct. If our postulates are false, then any deductions from them are invalid.

Se let me re-frame this discussion. The title you chose was 'Is God and His works perfect?'

So, the question is:

What can we say about our known universe and its creator as it relates to the perfection or imperfection of either of them using logic and:

1. What we know of the nature of the creator of the universe from common experience
   
2. What we know of the nature of the universe from common experience and observable phenomenon
   or science
   

For this discussion, we will exclude dogma or personal gnostic experience.

So, let's start with the nature of the creator. I will pose a few hypotheses. Please provide proof that supports the validity of each hypothesis or disproves it.

Let's start with the basics...

1. There is an intelligent entity that created the known universe. This entity is also called God.
   
2. God is unlimited, that is, perfect such that there is no state of being that represents a reality more complete than God.
   
3. That which is perfect cannot create that which is imperfect.
   
4. That which is imperfect cannot create perfection.
   

In order to discuss this from a logical point of view we must agree that these hypotheses are true or false. From there we can find other hypotheses that will take us further. Of course, if the first hypothesis is false, then we are wasting our time.

seekerjuan wrote:

Reality has importance and truth. Pinciples are not important till proven.

You are exactly correct. If our postulates are false, then any deductions from them are invalid.

Se let me re-frame this discussion. The title you chose was 'Is God and His works perfect?'

So, the question is:

What can we say about our known universe and its creator as it relates to the perfection or imperfection of either of them using logic and:

1. What we know of the nature of the creator of the universe from common experience
   
2. What we know of the nature of the universe from common experience and observable phenomenon
   or science
   

For this discussion, we will exclude dogma or personal gnostic experience.

So, let's start with the nature of the creator. I will pose a few hypotheses. Please provide proof that supports the validity of each hypothesis or disproves it.


Let's start with the basics...

OK.

1. There is an intelligent entity that created the known universe. This entity is also called God.

Man has been looking for evidence of God for 2000 to 6000 yrs. aprox. No evidence has yet been shown. The belief in an intelligent miracle working creator God has been perpetuated by men who have said that they were in the spirit and communicated with an entity that gave them the information that many now believe as truth. I call the old term, in the spirit, telepathic communication.
Other than hear say, there is no direct evidence for a creator God.

1. God is unlimited, that is, perfect such that there is no state of being that represents a reality more complete than God.

I reprint from my OP.
I see God’s universe as perfect.
I should give you my definition of perfect now to save some time.
Some people see or use that word to denote a finish and complete product.
I do not and if I may, God does not.
In the beginning God was alone and perfect. He then began to add to His universe. Evolution is change so since the changes He began with, did not cause a lose of perfection, but moved it to a new level, I say that perfection is now perfection in evolution. Always perfect but like the U S constitution uses the term, moving to a more perfect state. I also do not see a schism between Darwin’s evolution and God. God began it and Darwin named it. This shows my thoughts on a six day creation but that too is a different issue.

seekerjuan
If perfect is a condition that can never change then God cannot absorb new data. That would be change. That would mean that live or dead, whatever we do, he could never know unless as some believe, he already knows everything. If he does, then he cannot ever check what he knows or is because he would have to record somewhere how many times he has checked and that too is data that he cannot add to himself because he is a non changing perfect and no new data is allowed. In fact, if he was perfect on His day one, so to speak, then he could not have added us to his perfection. His perfection must remain original to his day one. Forever stagnant.

1. That which is perfect cannot create that which is imperfect.

If we disregard the uncertainty principle then I would agree. My level of certainty on my answer is 95%.
I see all things, including God as an evolving system. Nature always doing the best she can with what is at hand. The creation of particles from nothing or the disappearance of particles may have effects that screw nature up but I am not sure if that has an effect in the real world, so to speak.

1. That which is imperfect cannot create perfection.
   

My answer here is the same as the above for perfection.
I am not far from just forgetting the uncertainty principle and just agreeing 100%

In order to discuss this from a logical point of view we must agree that these hypotheses are true or false. From there we can find other hypotheses that will take us further. Of course, if the first hypothesis is false, then we are wasting our time.

The first hypothesis has yet to be proven to my mind but I have yet to see your thoughts on any of your hypotheses. You may convince me and I invite you to try. I do believe in God. You may be able to show me why he does not at present do miracles.
As to wasting time, one of the old philosophers, I have forgotten which one, said that it was quite possible for men of intelligence to debate, discuss and reason on issues that they did not believe to be real.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
These come from man's own insecurity. A wish list for our comfort. I am saved, I am saved, yippee.

Just a note on this. I agree there seems to be an inborn need for all humans to believe that they are a part of something greater than themselves. I suspect, from a purely logical perspective, there is an evolutionary advantage to this which has helped man survive.

As to the 'I am saved' group, I would say, if you are telling me you are saved, then you cannot be saved because you are still here.

First, it's important to point out that just because we cannot directly observe something does not mean it does not exist or that we can know nothing about it. Black Holes are a case in point. We know from Relativity that Black Holes are a mathematical possibility. We also know that due to the nature of a Black Hole, we will never see one. Anything that comes close to a Black Hole falls in, a probe or even light. We can therefore never see a Black Hole directly. However, we can see it's affect on the stars that orbit it. From their orbits, we can deduce that a Black Hole is present and observe some of its attributes.

The same is true of dinosaurs. We will never see a dinosaur directly, we only have the fossilized impressions of their bones or bodies to tell us they existed, what they were like, how they were born, and what they ate. This does not mean we can say they were never here or that we know nothing about them.

So it will be with our search for God in nature. We must look for God's paw print, so to speak...

OK, let me begin my turn at these hypotheses.

1. There is an intelligent entity that created the known universe. This entity is also called God.

The most compelling proof of a creator is cause and effect. From the first law of motion we learn, a body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. In our everyday experience, we see everything has a cause, and every cause has a prior cause. So from these two laws, which are well established and quite provable, we see that at some point, if you trace back to every cause/effect chain, you must come to one of two possibilities. Either this cause/effect chain stretches back to infinity, or we eventually must come to a First Cause.

Logically, it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero, you will never reach time zero. It is equally impossible to count from minus infinity to zero for the same reason. Based on the fact that we are at time zero, we can conclude that the Universe must have a beginning, and thus a First Cause.

This First Cause, logically, would have no preceding cause, and would therefore have to exist outside this universe and outside time itself otherwise it would have a preceding cause. This first cause, because it exists outside time, can have no creator, or other cause, no beginning, and no end, as we who exist in time would understand it. This First Cause is what we would refer to as the creator.

Of course, this by itself, does not prove intelligence. Evidence for intelligence, comes from the laws of physics and evolution we see around us. If the physical laws of this universe were slightly different, or the amount of energy and matter were slightly different, there would have been a Big Crunch just after the Big Bang and life as we know it would never have existed.

If we look at the Earth, we see the Earth itself is a system that seems meant to support life. There is an iron core that provides a huge magnetic shield that protects us from the sun's radiation. There is the whole cycle of life and death that provides a food chain for the existence of life here. It appears that every organ in our body has or had, at some time in the history of evolution, a purpose. Either all of these event came together in a gigantic coincidence or this is where we find evidence of intelligence.

Greatest I am wrote:
seekerjuan
If perfect is a condition that can never change then God cannot absorb new data. That would be change. That would mean that live or dead, whatever we do, he could never know unless as some believe, he already knows everything. If he does, then he cannot ever check what he knows or is because he would have to record somewhere how many times he has checked and that too is data that he cannot add to himself because he is a non changing perfect and no new data is allowed. In fact, if he was perfect on His day one, so to speak, then he could not have added us to his perfection. His perfection must remain original to his day one. Forever stagnant

The problem with this argument is that it postulates that God exists within time. If we proceed from the postulate that this entity is unlimited, it cannot exist within time without becoming limited by the 'ever becoming nature' of that which exists in time. Stagnation, also has temporal implications, and so is meaningless without time.

That which is perfect cannot create that which is imperfect.

This one is a little tougher. You see, if you throw in the omnipotent angle, then God can do whatever It wants. If It chooses to leave something unfinished, that does not mean there was no perfect archetype that God was aware of and had as part of the initial plan. It simply means that the completed perfection manifested in a limited material way and may or may not continue to completion.

This, to some extent, supports your argument that the universe is in the state of becoming perfect. The draw back is the ever becoming nature of time. So long as the universe is evolving in time, it will continue to 'become' and never complete unless there is some end to time itself or this evolution exists for infinity which is that same as saying it will never reach perfection.

For the record, I think the evolution toward perfection hypothesis has merit.

That which is imperfect cannot create perfection.

That which is limited (us) exists in a universe that is limited. A limited environment, by definition has boundaries. As such nothing that is of this universe can exceed the boundaries of this universe. Therefore, what is here cannot create perfection, or that which is unlimited.

he does not at present do miracles.

I personally do not believe in miracles. God set the laws of the universe from the beginning. If he suspends these laws, the universe would most likely collapse. As such, what are perceived as miracles, are simply events that do not have obvious causes. These events were perceived by primitive people has miracles only because they did not have the knowledge of how they came about.

seekerjuan wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
These come from man's own insecurity. A wish list for our comfort. I am saved, I am saved, yippee.

Just a note on this. I agree there seems to be an inborn need for all humans to believe that they are a part of something greater than themselves. I suspect, from a purely logical perspective, there is an evolutionary advantage to this which has helped man survive.

As to the 'I am saved' group, I would say, if you are telling me you are saved, then you cannot be saved because you are still here.

I guess I should start to use emotions. I meant that as a joke towards Christians.
In reality, it is my view that none of us are ever lost to the God I found. We are all destined to be part of the cosmic consciousness. In this we have no choice. There is no heaven or hell.

Regards
DL

seekerjuan wrote:First, it's important to point out that just because we cannot directly observe something does not mean it does not exist or that we can know nothing about it. Black Holes are a case in point. We know from Relativity that Black Holes are a mathematical possibility. We also know that due to the nature of a Black Hole, we will never see one. Anything that comes close to a Black Hole falls in, a probe or even light. We can therefore never see a Black Hole directly. However, we can see it's affect on the stars that orbit it. From their orbits, we can deduce that a Black Hole is present and observe some of its attributes.

The same is true of dinosaurs. We will never see a dinosaur directly, we only have the fossilized impressions of their bones or bodies to tell us they existed, what they were like, how they were born, and what they ate. This does not mean we can say they were never here or that we know nothing about them.

So it will be with our search for God in nature. We must look for God's paw print, so to speak...

OK, let me begin my turn at these hypotheses.

1. There is an intelligent entity that created the known universe. This entity is also called God.

The most compelling proof of a creator is cause and effect. From the first law of motion we learn, a body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. In our everyday experience, we see everything has a cause, and every cause has a prior cause. So from these two laws, which are well established and quite provable, we see that at some point, if you trace back to every cause/effect chain, you must come to one of two possibilities. Either this cause/effect chain stretches back to infinity, or we eventually must come to a First Cause.

Logically, it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero, you will never reach time zero. It is equally impossible to count from minus infinity to zero for the same reason. Based on the fact that we are at time zero, we can conclude that the Universe must have a beginning, and thus a First Cause.

This First Cause, logically, would have no preceding cause, and would therefore have to exist outside this universe and outside time itself otherwise it would have a preceding cause. This first cause, because it exists outside time, can have no creator, or other cause, no beginning, and no end, as we who exist in time would understand it. This First Cause is what we would refer to as the creator.

Of course, this by itself, does not prove intelligence. Evidence for intelligence, comes from the laws of physics and evolution we see around us. If the physical laws of this universe were slightly different, or the amount of energy and matter were slightly different, there would have been a Big Crunch just after the Big Bang and life as we know it would never have existed.

If we look at the Earth, we see the Earth itself is a system that seems meant to support life. There is an iron core that provides a huge magnetic shield that protects us from the sun's radiation. There is the whole cycle of life and death that provides a food chain for the existence of life here. It appears that every organ in our body has or had, at some time in the history of evolution, a purpose.

No argument to here. You seem to agree with phisicists who say that we cannot know of the conditions befor the big bang because before that, the laws of phisics break down. I do not know if this can ever be proven as fact without getting there but it does sound compelling.

Either all of these event came together in a gigantic coincidence or this is where we find evidence of intelligence.

I do not agree that it is evidence of intelligence.
There is the possibility that there was a non intelligent cause to the big bang. The cause remains unknown. We are not aware of all the laws of nature. In an endless universe, all possibilities become probabilities so I do not discount an intelligent force either.
The jury is still out.
I do know that when I communicated with the cosmic consciousness, my thinking that there was no such things as miracles, was confimed.
The gigantic coincidence you speak of for life may have occured amny times. We do not know as yet but to think that we are the only intelligent force in the universe has a low probability.

Truth is, if we are playing with possibilities and probabilities, that it is more likely, and I do not believe it for a second, that we were seeded by aliens.

Regards
DL

seekerjuan wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
seekerjuan
If perfect is a condition that can never change then God cannot absorb new data. That would be change. That would mean that live or dead, whatever we do, he could never know unless as some believe, he already knows everything. If he does, then he cannot ever check what he knows or is because he would have to record somewhere how many times he has checked and that too is data that he cannot add to himself because he is a non changing perfect and no new data is allowed. In fact, if he was perfect on His day one, so to speak, then he could not have added us to his perfection. His perfection must remain original to his day one. Forever stagnant

The problem with this argument is that it postulates that God exists within time. If we proceed from the postulate that this entity is unlimited, it cannot exist within time without becoming limited by the 'ever becoming nature' of that which exists in time. Stagnation, also has temporal implications, and so is meaningless without time.

Perhaps, but how could we ever prove that God exists out of time and somehow made contact with time to initiate the big bang which is in time?
Heaven and hell would also have to exist out of time as well. No?
If there is a place of no time, and we know that we need time to absorb data, then being there, we could never know it, because we nor God would have the time to convey or absorb data. We could not perceive, that takes time.

Regards
DL

seekerjuan wrote:

That which is perfect cannot create that which is imperfect.

This one is a little tougher. You see, if you throw in the omnipotent angle, then God can do whatever It wants. If It chooses to leave something unfinished, that does not mean there was no perfect archetype that God was aware of and had as part of the initial plan. It simply means that the completed perfection manifested in a limited material way and may or may not continue to completion.

This, to some extent, supports your argument that the universe is in the state of becoming perfect. The draw back is the ever becoming nature of time. So long as the universe is evolving in time, it will continue to 'become' and never complete unless there is some end to time itself or this evolution exists for infinity which is that same as saying it will never reach perfection.

For the record, I think the evolution toward perfection hypothesis has merit.

Good.

If there were a God who decided to create an unfinished product, like us for instance, then whatever He would have created till that point in time where he stopped, would have to be perfect if perfection comes from perfection. If unfinished, as we are, then we, as I have stated I think, are perfection in evolution.
God did not then produce imperfection, just an unfinished perfect starting point for us to continue our perfection in evolution.
Here again though, This God would have to move from His place of timelessness to our place of time.
All this can only happen of course IF there is an intelligent creator.

Regards
DL

seekerjuan wrote:

That which is imperfect cannot create perfection.

That which is limited (us) exists in a universe that is limited. A limited environment, by definition has boundaries. As such nothing that is of this universe can exceed the boundaries of this universe. Therefore, what is here cannot create perfection, or that which is unlimited.

If I was Christian, I would be peeved because of this.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I must have missed where science found the limit or boundary to our universe.
What was there, a wall or more nothingness. If a wall then do we know what is behind it. If nothing then we can put out our hand and if it does not find anything there, then we have yet to reach the boundary or limit.
I think that this is what they call a catch 22.

Regards
DL

seekerjuan wrote:

he does not at present do miracles.

I personally do not believe in miracles. God set the laws of the universe from the beginning. If he suspends these laws, the universe would most likely collapse. As such, what are perceived as miracles, are simply events that do not have obvious causes. These events were perceived by primitive people has miracles only because they did not have the knowledge of how they came about.

We agree.

I was getting the impression that you thought that a God had created man by miraculous means.
I am glad that you do not.

Regards
DL

While religious dogma, Bible quotes, Gnostic experiences and space aliens are entertaining, they are, of course, non sequitur.

So, let me sum up where I think we are.

We agree to the follow, such that they can be considered settled and postulates.

1. The Universe had a beginning.
   
2. The chain of cause/effect which formed the universe we know today, started with a First Cause that had no preceding cause.
   
3. That which is perfect (God) can create that which has the potential to be perfect but has yet to be perfectly complete and therefore in a temporal state of imperfection.
   
4. God does not suspend His own laws, so He does not do miracles.
   

Hypothesis that remain to be proven or disproved are:

1. The First Cause was/is intelligent.
   
2. The First Cause exists outside of space-time.
   
3. That which is limited cannot create that which is unlimited.
   
4. The Universe is finite.
   
5. God could create the universe without directly interacting or existing within it.
   
6. God is unlimited, that is, perfect such that there is no state of being that represents a reality more complete than God.
   

I'm going to pass on the first hypotheses at this point and take up the second:

The First Cause exists outside of space-time.

The universe exists in a fabric of interwoven space and time. From Relativity, we know that gravity affects space-time. For example, time passes at a different rate on the Earth's surface than it does in outer space. This difference is proven and taken into account in order to make GPS technology possible. Relativity also predicts and experiments have proven that velocity also can affect time. From this, we can deduce that time is a physical property, as it can be affected by gravity and velocity.

We know, from observation, that the Universe is expanding. Given this, we know that as you go back in time, the Universe had to be smaller, much smaller. This is the basis of the 'Big Bang Theory.' From a combination of classic physics and Relativity, we have predictable mathematical models of what happened seconds after the Big Bang. At that moment, Space and Time began to form. Prior to the Big Bang, time, as we know it, did not exist. Today the Arrow of Time points forward because it is driven by the initial force of the Big Bang itself. According to the mathematical models, if the Universe were to collapse in a Big Crunch, time would flow backward toward time zero! There are some who speculate that the Universe has expanded and collapsed many times, creating time and consuming time on each expansion and contraction.

As you indicated in a previous post, science can only predict back to a few moments after the actual Bang. This would appear to indicate that the laws themselves were created as part of the Big Bang. Which would be consistent with them being defined by a creator, but, of course, not proof.

So, if we postulate that the First Cause preceded the Big Bang, or Bangs, it could not be in the Space-Time of this universe as this Space-Time did not exist.

Again, I am going to skip the third hypotheses and continue with:

The Universe is finite.

Let's start with the law of conservation of energy. This law states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system, like the universe, remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, that is to say for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Because energy is associated with mass in the Einstein's theory of relativity, the conservation of energy also implies the conservation of mass in isolated systems.

So, based on experimentation and experience, we have never seen matter or energy spontaneously appear. As such, we can assume that if the universe is finite, then the matter in it is also limited or finite.

Using logic alone, we can say that a line cannot be infinite in one direction and finite in another. If you claim to have such a line, then you could say that I am going to measure this line from infinity minus one to it's starting point. Of course, you'll never find a starting point because it is infinite. So we can logically say that something cannot be both infinite and finite, by definition.

If I can prove that the Universe is finite in one direction, it follows that it cannot be infinite in another direction. It can be perpetual, i.e. lasting until the end, but not infinite.

OK, here's a simple experiment. Take a rubber ball out to your local sidewalk. Hold the ball and extend your arm level with your shoulder over the cement of the sidewalk. Drop the ball. Did it hit the sidewalk? If it did not, the universe is infinite. If it did hit the sidewalk the the universe is not infinite.

You see, just as you could say the universe is infinitely large, you can equally say it is infinity small. As the ball falls from your hand, the distance traveled can theoretically be divided by 1/2 and infinite number of times. So, if your ball starts 4 feet off the sidewalk, it will eventually fall to 2 feet, then 1 foot, then 1/2 foot, then 1/4, 1/8, ... down to an infinite number of half steps. But if this were actually true, the ball would never hit the ground. At some point, the ball hits a barrier that can no longer be divided, otherwise, it could never reach the ground.

Time has the same characteristics. Your watch says it's 5 minutes to noon. There is theoretically an infinite number of half steps between 11:55 and 12:00. If this were true, then you would never get to eat lunch. Although, there are days I suspect this may be the case...

So it follows, that the universe has a boundary at the very small. It also follows that the universe must have a boundary at the very large.

Another point, if we accept the Big Bang theory, then you would also have to accept a finite nature to space-time as it is expanding from it's initial point to where ever it is today. Now, you can ask, what would happen if I stretched my hand beyond the edge of space-time. There are two possibilities, either your space-time would expand to accommodate your hand, or your hand would cease to exist outside the edge. As to what lies outside space time, science does not know. Some speculate that the Universe is finite yet boundless, but that is speculation.