Is God and His works perfect?

OK, let me return to #3

That which is limited cannot create that which is unlimited.

So, now that we have established the the universe is finite. It now follows that even if you arranged all of the matter and energy in the universe into one object or energy source, it could not be infinite. There is not infinite matter in the universe and the law of conservation of energy prohibits you from increasing the over all matter and/or energy in the finite universe.

God could create the universe without directly interacting or existing within it.

As Space-Time was, itself, created at the beginning of the Big Bang, there was no need for the First Cause to directly enter the universe as we know it. When you build something, like a model car or write a program, you do not become part of your creation, it is separate from you. You are outside what ever it is.

So God could be just a kid with an ant farm. Yes, we are the ants... And we are here to keep Junior entertained until mom and dad come home. There is no way or need for Junior to enter the ant farm, He can only watch and tap on the glass once in a while. He occasionally communicates with the ants telepathically, but there is no physical contact.

OK, that's it for me for tonight. I'll let you tackle the last two.

• The First Cause was/is intelligent.
  
• God is unlimited, that is, perfect such that there is no state of being that represents a reality more complete than God.
  

By the way, now that we have proven that which is finite cannot create that which is infinite, the Christians will just have to find another Biblical sound bite...

seekerjuan wrote: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.

Perhaps not space-time the way we know it today but space certainly did exist. The universe expanded into something. That something took up space. Einstein called it the ether, I believe. Man invented space time as a good way to measure distance. We do not know how the pre bang conditions were set up, we cannot, but we can know that they had a place to go in space and that they had to have time to produce the big bang.

Youe first cause also would need space to exist in.

Regards
DL

seekerjuan wrote:

God could create the universe without directly interacting or existing within it.

As Space-Time was, itself, created at the beginning of the Big Bang, there was no need for the First Cause to directly enter the universe as we know it. When you build something, like a model car or write a program, you do not become part of your creation, it is separate from you. You are outside what ever it is.

So God could be just a kid with an ant farm. Yes, we are the ants... And we are here to keep Junior entertained until mom and dad come home. There is no way or need for Junior to enter the ant farm, He can only watch and tap on the glass once in a while. He occasionally communicates with the ants telepathically, but there is no physical contact.

It is also possible for the big bang to have obliterated any existence that was before, including a God.

Regards
DL

seekerjuan wrote:

OK, that's it for me for tonight. I'll let you tackle the last two.

• The First Cause was/is intelligent.
  

We have yet to find evidence of the first cause let alone know if any intelligence was at play.
If there was an intelligent entity then he is not bragging or letting us know of His reality.

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

If that were the case, then God would not need to create at all. If there were a God then He obviously did not feel complete without man here to love and honor this great God.

By the way, now that we have proven that which is finite cannot create that which is infinite, the Christians will just have to find another Biblical sound bite...

A tad premature perhaps. We have yet to know what is finite and what is infinite. The problem with these is that mathematically, all we need do is add 0s or .0s yet never to be able to pove that the new number is real or can be real.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
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?

It's actually not so hard to envision existing outside time if you really think about it. Indulge me in a little thought experiment to prove my point.

Read the following sentence out loud:

"I am here."

OK, now, where is the 'you' that is reading that sentence as you read this sentence? He is just a thought or memory at this point, isn't he? But, in thought, he exists outside time now doesn't he? You can recall him over and over any time you wish? You can image everything about how he felt, what he did before and after reading the sentence. All of this without regard for time or sequence.

What about the you who will get up tomorrow morning? Where is he now? He is just a thought, isn't he? Before you were born, you were the thought of your parents. When you reach the end of your life, only the thought of you will remain? Within time, you will no longer exist. But, the thought of you can remain without regard for time.

In fact, can you tell me just exactly, where does the future become now and now the past? Actually, you can't. You see, it takes time for your senses to transmit their inputs to your brain. By the time it registers, the events have already past. You cannot see the present, only the past. So, to some extent even you exist outside the real time.

Now consider, that a being who is pure thought exists as the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. In the beginning all that can exist, exists in the thoughts of this being. At the end, all that existed is now the thought of the One. This thought can exist without regard for time. So this being will know all that can be and all that was. We know from superconductors that input and output can occur simultaneously with zero resistance. God could conceive of all possibility and all reality simultaneously. We could all just be thought or memory that occurred in zero time.

So, if you consider, that the past only exists as thought, and the future, only exists has thought, then we are only thought. All logic is based on "I think therefore I am." But, 'you' only exist has thought. Thought, has no regard for time or sequence and so can exist without regard for time, and therefore outside time.

Greatest I am wrote:
Heaven and hell would also have to exist out of time as well. No?

As far as Heaven and Hell, these concepts are just human inventions to control humanity. If those who follow you believe you have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and Hell, then you can force them to do anything.

seekerjuan

So we are left with a God out of time and man in time.

God in a timeless place where even thoughts have no time to be thought. God then cannot even say, I am.

Man can.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:seekerjuan

So we are left with a God out of time and man in time.

God in a timeless place where even thoughts have no time to be thought. God then cannot even say, I am.

Man can.

Well, actually, man can and will. God can, will and is...

Physicists have long struggled to understand what time really is. Actually, they are not even sure it exists at all. They are coming to the conclusion that time is an artifact of our perception of reality.

Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Marseille in France, and his colleagues, in 2007, worked out a method to
compress multiple quantum events in time into a single event that can be described without reference to time. The theory behind this states that the dynamics of the universe is a network of correlations, rather than evolution in time. Several other experiments, by other physicists, are pointing to this same phenomenon.

According to Rovelli, time is an illusion. It is the illusion of time that allows us to understand the dynamics of the universe. Much as a room that has multiple temperatures in various areas, can be said to have a single average temperature.

"It is not reality that has a time flow, it is our very approximate knowledge of reality that has a time flow," says Rovelli. "Time is the effect of our ignorance."

Edgar Cayce made this same claim. He stated that time was an illusion, but an illusion that has purpose.

Plato, also postulated that God existed in a state of perpetual now and so could understand all there is at once. We, who are limited, need time to understand our limited existence in the vastness of the infinite. God can understand it all at once.

seekerjuan wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:seekerjuan

So we are left with a God out of time and man in time.

God in a timeless place where even thoughts have no time to be thought. God then cannot even say, I am.

Man can.

Well, actually, man can and will. God can, will and is...

Physicists have long struggled to understand what time really is. Actually, they are not even sure it exists at all. They are coming to the conclusion that time is an artifact of our perception of reality.

Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Marseille in France, and his colleagues, in 2007, worked out a method to
compress multiple quantum events in time into a single event that can be described without reference to time. The theory behind this states that the dynamics of the universe is a network of correlations, rather than evolution in time. Several other experiments, by other physicists, are pointing to this same phenomenon.

According to Rovelli, time is an illusion. It is the illusion of time that allows us to understand the dynamics of the universe. Much as a room that has multiple temperatures in various areas, can be said to have a single average temperature.

"It is not reality that has a time flow, it is our very approximate knowledge of reality that has a time flow," says Rovelli. "Time is the effect of our ignorance."

Edgar Cayce made this same claim. He stated that time was an illusion, but an illusion that has purpose.

Plato, also postulated that God existed in a state of perpetual now and so could understand all there is at once. We, who are limited, need time to understand our limited existence in the vastness of the infinite. God can understand it all at once.

Hey Juan, sorry for long the absence. Did ya ever get the feeling that all this is just abit complicated? Nature itself has shown the simplist solution is often the correct one. Could it be that God's identity itself may be found by far less complicated thought??? Now don't get me wrong, my number one rule to all is "figure out how the universe works, first" before you go delving into religions and philosophy. But don't you think that delving on such too much can maybe be distracting to what you're really set out to be seeking???

seekerjuan wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:seekerjuan

So we are left with a God out of time and man in time.

God in a timeless place where even thoughts have no time to be thought. God then cannot even say, I am.

Man can.

Well, actually, man can and will. God can, will and is...

Physicists have long struggled to understand what time really is. Actually, they are not even sure it exists at all. They are coming to the conclusion that time is an artifact of our perception of reality.

Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Marseille in France, and his colleagues, in 2007, worked out a method to
compress multiple quantum events in time into a single event that can be described without reference to time. The theory behind this states that the dynamics of the universe is a network of correlations, rather than evolution in time. Several other experiments, by other physicists, are pointing to this same phenomenon.

According to Rovelli, time is an illusion. It is the illusion of time that allows us to understand the dynamics of the universe. Much as a room that has multiple temperatures in various areas, can be said to have a single average temperature.

"It is not reality that has a time flow, it is our very approximate knowledge of reality that has a time flow," says Rovelli. "Time is the effect of our ignorance."

Edgar Cayce made this same claim. He stated that time was an illusion, but an illusion that has purpose.

Plato, also postulated that God existed in a state of perpetual now and so could understand all there is at once. We, who are limited, need time to understand our limited existence in the vastness of the infinite. God can understand it all at once.

How do you know what God can understand?

Regards
DL

Thoughts01 wrote:
Hey Juan, sorry for long the absence. Did ya ever get the feeling that all this is just abit complicated? Nature itself has shown the simplist solution is often the correct one. Could it be that God's identity itself may be found by far less complicated thought??? Now don't get me wrong, my number one rule to all is "figure out how the universe works, first" before you go delving into religions and philosophy. But don't you think that delving on such too much can maybe be distracting to what you're really set out to be seeking???

Actually, yes, I think that often the truth is hidden in plain sight and the appearance of complexity can blind you to the simplicity. However, if you only look at the trees, you will never see the beauty of the forest. I personally look for patterns that make consistent sense in order to confirm or disprove what I perceive to be true. This generally means starting with a simple idea then looking for evidence in the complexity of our world.

I have found that, often, what, at first, appears complex, is actually quite simple and elegant. As you point out, science, too, often holds this to be true. The trick is looking at what is happening from an unexpected angle. There you will find simplicity, truth and enlightenment. The problem is, at least for me, there is no short cut to understanding. If you do not see the trees and the forest you will miss the true beauty of both.

So in our search for God, I would expect the same complexity based on simplicity to be true. I also have found, that once you understand the most fundamental part of anything, the complex appearing behaviors are never mysterious.

Greatest I am wrote:
How do you know what God can understand?

I guess, we haven't established that God is intelligent, so from that stand point, it is presumptuous to claim God understands anything at all.

If, the first cause was intelligent and all knowing, then we would be able to say, but without this foundation, there is really no way to make any assumptions. Again, from a philosophical point of view, like Plato, there is the assumption of intelligence and all knowing. But, it is absolutely possible, that in infinite probabilities, the universe could come into being from nothing at all.

In fact, at a quantum level it has been proven that particles do pop in and out of existence from nothing at all. However, without external energy or extreme gravity, these particles cannot stay within our universe so the overall balance remains constant. Thus, conservation of energy is maintained. Over the vastness of time, it is possible, that enough of these particles did come into existence and stay long enough to create gravity in order to become the Big Bang that formed our universe.

seekerjuan wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
How do you know what God can understand?

I guess, we haven't established that God is intelligent, so from that stand point, it is presumptuous to claim God understands anything at all.

If, the first cause was intelligent and all knowing, then we would be able to say, but without this foundation, there is really no way to make any assumptions. Again, from a philosophical point of view, like Plato, there is the assumption of intelligence and all knowing. But, it is absolutely possible, that in infinite probabilities, the universe could come into being from nothing at all.

In fact, at a quantum level it has been proven that particles do pop in and out of existence from nothing at all. However, without external energy or extreme gravity, these particles cannot stay within our universe so the overall balance remains constant. Thus, conservation of energy is maintained. Over the vastness of time, it is possible, that enough of these particles did come into existence and stay long enough to create gravity in order to become the Big Bang that formed our universe.

Time will tell if we will ever know for sure.

BTW, I have forgotten your response to the original question. Are we perfection in evolution of not?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
BTW, I have forgotten your response to the original question. Are we perfection in evolution of not?

Yes.

I was reading through this forum and I had a few interesting ideas.

How I was thinking about the entire thing was like: at the beginning, all consciousness was one big sphere. Then there was the great divorce. That separation from the source is the reason why we are having this discussion, trying to make sense out of something that we all know must be there, but we can only see its evidence, unless there is one who is constantly in a state of Nirvana.

What if God is the law? That great paradox that exists outside of itself, and inside of itself, and out and inside of that description, and in and out of that one. I mean, I keep thinking that the more complicated it gets the less truth it holds, unless you tear your mind to pieces thinking about it, then it might provide some truth. There may not ever be the right amount of description that will be able to explain the concept well enough. All things and Nothing, yes and no, itself and something else. Theoretically, God could be the word Yes, but is actually the word underneath that word.

What if:
In the beginning Man was God and God was Man, and then there was doubt and God made man. Doubt shattered the covenant between the two and then left Man to explain God to the doubter, Thereby creating the demiurge, an inferior god to the One because the demiurge was created by men, and is given its life by men, fueled by doubt and fear. To witness the demiurge, is to witness evidence of the One, without actually seeing the One. If the universe were flat, the One would be that which is above, and below it. We witness the Laws of the One, expressing themselves as Demiurge because many can't see beyond what they can see and they link things together thinking they are onto some great truth but are still only thinking inside their own finity.

I mean those were my thoughts, I'm struggling to make sense of it all now too. What do you think?

StarSeeker

If those are your thoughts then I can see why you are confused.
I like to think I know reality and you confused the hell out of me.
You are like a bee that does not know where to land. Follow one idea at a time if you want to make any headway. Logic is good.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:StarSeeker

If those are your thoughts then I can see why you are confused.
I like to think I know reality and you confused the hell out of me.
You are like a bee that does not know where to land. Follow one idea at a time if you want to make any headway. Logic is good.

Regards
DL

That could be the best advice I've ever gotten, no joke. Thank you.

Love and Light,
Matthew