Posted on 10/23/2011 4:30:28 PM PDT by freejohn
I hope that it's okay to post this in the Religion forum!?
I have been thinking about this for quite some time now and have come to my own conclusion and that is .. GOD HAS TO EXIST and not only does he exist .. He is the main argument Against the now popular 'Multi-verse' scenario!
Scientists from many different areas are pondering an infinite number of universes to explain our existence.
They talk about 'string theories' and 'infinite universes' where anything and everything can and does exist!
An example may be that in one universe, I am alive but in another I never was.
In one universe, I am a doctor while in others I may be a lawyer or an Indian Chief while in THIS one .. I'm just another 'smuck'! *)
IF the multi-verse theory were correct then GOD would HAVE to exist simply because 'Scientists' say ALL things MUST take place in 'Infinite Universes'!
Now .. Wouldn't it make sense that if GOD were to exist in even one of these universes then NONE of the rest of those universes could or would exist!?
GOD is a GOD of ORDER and Not a GOD of DISORDER so-o-o .. HOW could such a chaotic universe or in this case Chaotic Universes exist!?
I believe that Science has backed itself into a hole on this one!
(or maybe just created another paradox?)
What do you think?
If you were able to get beyond the multi-use of the word 'exist' in my ramblings .. I would Really like you Scientific and Religious thinkers input on this! 8)
Sounds like they are laying the scientific groundwork for a theory of heaven.
I could imagine a multiverse in which what we call heaven operates at a slightly different frequency and is therefor not normally detectable. Like frequencies on your radio dial. Here we are listening to top forty and... twist the dial just a little bit and suddenly you've got Sarah Evans coming in clear as a bell. It was there all along and you never knew.
Any hoot, please keep pinging me to your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ, I'll catch up as soon as I can.
The following is From Saint Thomas Aquinas Summa.
This is brilliant IMHO
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1047.htm
Article 1. Whether the multitude and distinction of things come from God?
Objection 1. It would seem that the multitude and distinction of things does not come from God. For one naturally always makes one. But God is supremely one, as appears from what precedes (11, 4). Therefore He produces but one effect.
Objection 2. Further, the representation is assimilated to its exemplar. But God is the exemplar cause of His effect, as was said above (Question 44, Article 3). Therefore, as God is one, His effect is one only, and not diverse.
Objection 3. Further, the means are proportional to the end. But the end of the creation is one—viz. the divine goodness, as was shown above (44, 4). Therefore the effect of God is but one.
On the contrary, It is said (Genesis 1:4-7) that God “divided the light from the darkness,” and “divided waters from waters.” Therefore the distinction and multitude of things is from God.
I answer that, The distinction of things has been ascribed to many causes. For some attributed the distinction to matter, either by itself or with the agent. Democritus, for instance, and all the ancient natural philosophers, who admitted no cause but matter, attributed it to matter alone; and in their opinion the distinction of things comes from chance according to the movement of matter. Anaxagoras, however, attributed the distinction and multitude of things to matter and to the agent together; and he said that the intellect distinguishes things by extracting what is mixed up in matter.
But this cannot stand, for two reasons.
First, because, as was shown above (Question 44, Article 2), even matter itself was created by God. Hence we must reduce whatever distinction comes from matter to a higher cause.
Secondly, because matter is for the sake of the form, and not the form for the matter, and the distinction of things comes from their proper forms. Therefore the distinction of things is not on account of the matter; but rather, on the contrary, created matter is formless, in order that it may be accommodated to different forms.
Others have attributed the distinction of things to secondary agents, as did Avicenna, who said that God by understanding Himself, produced the first intelligence; in which, forasmuch as it was not its own being, there is necessarily composition of potentiality and act, as will appear later (50, 3). And so the first intelligence, inasmuch as it understood the first cause, produced the second intelligence; and in so far as it understood itself as in potentiality it produced the heavenly body, which causes movement, and inasmuch as it understood itself as having actuality it produced the soul of the heavens.
But this opinion cannot stand, for two reasons. First, because it was shown above (Question 45, Article 5) that to create belongs to God alone, and hence what can be caused only by creation is produced by God alone—viz. all those things which are not subject to generation and corruption. Secondly, because, according to this opinion, the universality of things would not proceed from the intention of the first agent, but from the concurrence of many active causes; and such an effect we can describe only as being produced by chance. Therefore, the perfection of the universe, which consists of the diversity of things, would thus be a thing of chance, which is impossible.
Hence we must say that the distinction and multitude of things come from the intention of the first agent, who is God. For He brought things into being in order that His goodness might be communicated to creatures, and be represented by them; and because His goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, He produced many and diverse creatures, that what was wanting to one in the representation of the divine goodness might be supplied by another. For goodness, which in God is simple and uniform, in creatures is manifold and divided and hence the whole universe together participates the divine goodness more perfectly, and represents it better than any single creature whatever.
And because the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things, therefore Moses said that things are made distinct by the word of God, which is the concept of His wisdom; and this is what we read in Genesis 1:3-4: “God said: Be light made . . . And He divided the light from the darkness.”
Reply to Objection 1. The natural agent acts by the form which makes it what it is, and which is only one in one thing; and therefore its effect is one only. But the voluntary agent, such as God is, as was shown above (Question 19, Article 4), acts by an intellectual form. Since, therefore, it is not against God’s unity and simplicity to understand many things, as was shown above (Question 15, Article 2), it follows that, although He is one, He can make many things.
Reply to Objection 2. This reason would apply to the representation which reflects the exemplar perfectly, and which is multiplied by reason of matter only; hence the uncreated image, which is perfect, is only one. But no creature represents the first exemplar perfectly, which is the divine essence; and, therefore, it can be represented by many things. Still, according as ideas are called exemplars, the plurality of ideas corresponds in the divine mind to the plurality of things.
Reply to Objection 3. In speculative things the medium of demonstration, which demonstrates the conclusion perfectly, is one only; whereas probable means of proof are many. Likewise when operation is concerned, if the means be equal, so to speak, to the end, one only is sufficient. But the creature is not such a means to its end, which is God; and hence the multiplication of creatures is necessary.
Article 2. Whether the inequality of things is from God?
Objection 1. It would seem that the inequality of things is not from God. For it belongs to the best to produce the best. But among things that are best, one is not greater than another. Therefore, it belongs to God, Who is the Best, to make all things equal.
Objection 2. Further, equality is the effect of unity (Metaph. v, text 20). But God is one. Therefore, He has made all things equal.
Objection 3. Further, it is the part of justice to give unequal to unequal things. But God is just in all His works. Since, therefore, no inequality of things is presupposed to the operation whereby He gives being to things, it seems that He has made all things equal.
On the contrary, It is said (Sirach 33:7): “Why does one day excel another, and one light another, and one year another year, one sun another sun? [Vulgate: ‘when all come of the sun’]. By the knowledge of the Lord they were distinguished.”
I answer that, When Origen wished to refute those who said that the distinction of things arose from the contrary principles of good and evil, he said that in the beginning all things were created equal by God. For he asserted that God first created only the rational creatures and all equal; and that inequality arose in them from free-will, some being turned to God more and some less, and others turned more and others less away from God. And so those rational creatures which were turned to God by free-will, were promoted to the order of angels according to the diversity of merits. And those who were turned away from God were bound down to bodies according to the diversity of their sin; and he said this was the cause of the creation and diversity of bodies. But according to this opinion, it would follow that the universality of bodily creatures would not be the effect of the goodness of God as communicated to creatures, but it would be for the sake of the punishment of sin, which is contrary to what is said: “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31). And, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 3): “What can be more foolish than to say that the divine Architect provided this one sun for the one world, not to be an ornament to its beauty, nor for the benefit of corporeal things, but that it happened through the sin of one soul; so that, if a hundred souls had sinned, there would be a hundred suns in the world?”
Therefore it must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality. This may be explained as follows. A twofold distinction is found in things; one is a formal distinction as regards things differing specifically; the other is a material distinction as regards things differing numerically only. And as the matter is on account of the form, material distinction exists for the sake of the formal distinction. Hence we see that in incorruptible things there is only one individual of each species, forasmuch as the species is sufficiently preserved in the one; whereas in things generated and corruptible there are many individuals of one species for the preservation of the species. Whence it appears that formal distinction is of greater consequence than material. Now, formal distinction always requires inequality, because as the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, 10), the forms of things are like numbers in which species vary by addition or subtraction of unity. Hence in natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these one species is more perfect than others. Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality. For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things.
Reply to Objection 1. It is part of the best agent to produce an effect which is best in its entirety; but this does not mean that He makes every part of the whole the best absolutely, but in proportion to the whole; in the case of an animal, for instance, its goodness would be taken away if every part of it had the dignity of an eye. Thus, therefore, God also made the universe to be best as a whole, according to the mode of a creature; whereas He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another. And therefore we find it said of each creature, “God saw the light that it was good” (Genesis 1:4); and in like manner of each one of the rest. But of all together it is said, “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31).
Reply to Objection 2. The first effect of unity is equality; and then comes multiplicity; and therefore from the Father, to Whom, according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5), is appropriated unity, the Son proceeds to Whom is appropriated equality, and then from Him the creature proceeds, to which belongs inequality; but nevertheless even creatures share in a certain equality—namely, of proportion.
Reply to Objection 3. This is the argument that persuaded Origen: but it holds only as regards the distribution of rewards, the inequality of which is due to unequal merits. But in the constitution of things there is no inequality of parts through any preceding inequality, either of merits or of the disposition of the matter; but inequality comes from the perfection of the whole. This appears also in works done by art; for the roof of a house differs from the foundation, not because it is made of other material; but in order that the house may be made perfect of different parts, the artificer seeks different material; indeed, he would make such material if he could.
Article 3. Whether there is only one world?
Objection 1. It would seem that there is not only one world, but many. Because, as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 46), it is unfitting to say that God has created things without a reason. But for the same reason He created one, He could create many, since His power is not limited to the creation of one world; but rather it is infinite, as was shown above (Question 25, Article 2). Therefore God has produced many worlds.
Objection 2. Further, nature does what is best and much more does God. But it is better for there to be many worlds than one, because many good things are better than a few. Therefore many worlds have been made by God.
Objection 3. Further, everything which has a form in matter can be multiplied in number, the species remaining the same, because multiplication in number comes from matter. But the world has a form in matter. Thus as when I say “man” I mean the form, and when I say “this man,” I mean the form in matter; so when we say “world,” the form is signified, and when we say “this world,” the form in the matter is signified. Therefore there is nothing to prevent the existence of many worlds.
On the contrary, It is said (John 1:10): “The world was made by Him,” where the world is named as one, as if only one existed.
I answer that, The very order of things created by God shows the unity of the world. For this world is called one by the unity of order, whereby some things are ordered to others. But whatever things come from God, have relation of order to each other, and to God Himself, as shown above (11, 3; 21, 1). Hence it must be that all things should belong to one world. Therefore those only can assert that many worlds exist who do not acknowledge any ordaining wisdom, but rather believe in chance, as Democritus, who said that this world, besides an infinite number of other worlds, was made from a casual concourse of atoms.
Reply to Objection 1. This reason proves that the world is one because all things must be arranged in one order, and to one end. Therefore from the unity of order in things Aristotle infers (Metaph. xii, text 52) the unity of God governing all; and Plato (Tim.), from the unity of the exemplar, proves the unity of the world, as the thing designed.
Reply to Objection 2. No agent intends material plurality as the end forasmuch as material multitude has no certain limit, but of itself tends to infinity, and the infinite is opposed to the notion of end. Now when it is said that many worlds are better than one, this has reference to material order. But the best in this sense is not the intention of the divine agent; forasmuch as for the same reason it might be said that if He had made two worlds, it would be better if He had made three; and so on to infinite.
Reply to Objection 3. The world is composed of the whole of its matter. For it is not possible for there to be another earth than this one, since every earth would naturally be carried to this central one, wherever it was. The same applies to the other bodies which are part of the world.
Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for these excerpts from the magnificent Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church!
Love it! bttt
I just got done listening to some of the following series that deals with the multi verse and the existence of God.
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=7132
This solves so many issues for the doubters, regardless of faith.
Enjoy!
Thanks for the link, dear stfassisi!
Thanks. Sounds interesting! Will listen at the first opportunity.
It kinda screws up the normalization of probabilities.
Cheers!
Is Martin Landau any relation to Lev Landau?
Cheers!
1) the "necessary" vs arbitrary existence / non-existence of God: God is by definition outside of ALL nature and therefore not an extensive property of any posited verse.
2) equal a priori probabilities for the existence of God.
Einstein may have objected to quantum mechanics on the grounds that "God does not play dice with the Universe"; but you are attempting to play dice with God.
Cheers!
Game, set, and match, to betty boop!
Cheers!
I kinda like the way Jesus put it:
"Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but My Words shall never pass away."
Sounds rather independent of any known Universe to me.
Cheers!
See also C.S. Lewis's Eckwards and Andwards in (I think) The Dark Tower (unfinished...)
Could you point me to a convenient or accessible link to Vafa or Wesson, btw?
Cheers!
Sounds like Plato's The Cave or Hebrews 8:5...
Cheers!
Argument from authority is not logically valid but the data transferred in such a manner may be veridical or veriferous.
And this applies just as much to a T.A.'s frustrated hand-waving when asked about a derivation of the difference between heat capacity at constant pressure vs. constant volume, as it does to a frantic parent warning a child to get out of traffic, as it does to religion.
The scientific method is good for minimizing false positives, but it does so at the cost of allowing false negatives.
Cheers!
"An atheist is someone who denies the existence of anything which he cannot explain away."
Cheers!
This it what gives the game away, you know.
For anything else not empirically observable (even if observable in principle, but not yet in practice), they yammer about ECREE and falsifiability.
But when it comes to intensely belabored models whose primary purpose and function seems to be to eliminate the necessity for God, it suddenly becomes "you stupid fundies are too dumb to understand the math" and "the math is so beautiful, so elegant that there *must* be something to it. And besides, this is *science*TM"
...even though falsifiability, experiments, and controls are the sine qua non of the scientific method, and are lacking from these theories. Now, it is true that the theories are winnowed such that any that give false predictions are eliminated: but the practitioners seem to make the mistake that any remaining theories are not sold as "provisional" or "tenable" but as "Look! We've disproved God!"
In addition, the subtle mistake of the multiverse models is that the governing laws which are held to lead to spontaneous pair creation, etc., are themselves inferences from THIS universe: and the very ansatz of multiverse theory is that the constants, laws, and parameters are different. Why is it that the few laws concerning vacuum fluctuations are held as invariants, when everything else is up for grabs?
Cheers! QED.
These "theories" can be referred to as such only insofar as they are mathematical constructs. Otherwise, in order to be physical theories, they must be supported by evidence.
"In addition, the subtle mistake of the multiverse models is that the governing laws which are held to lead to spontaneous pair creation, etc., are themselves inferences from THIS universe:"
The fundamental governing law for anything to exist as an instantiation of a real, or true object can be stated mathematically as A=A. The equivalent verbally is, "a thing is what it is." In science it is stated as the law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy is what underlies the understanding of pair creation. The evidence that supports the understanding are observables, not inference. The law of conservation of energy must hold in any and every universe. Otherwise a thing would arbitrarily not be what it is and then, or at the same time, or any arbitrary time, arbitrarily be what it is.
Note that spontaneous pair creation leaves no net energy gain, or loss in this universe and likewise none in the universe the pair arose from. Nevertheless, the two worlds are aware of each other, because of the interaction.
"God is by definition outside of ALL nature and therefore not an extensive property of any posited verse."
Who defined this god and why should anyone concern themselves with such a conjured up being? Notice that a measure of an extensive property is a quantification of an amount of energy and would not apply to a sentient rational being. Sentience and rational capacity are not extensive properties of a being, they are intrinsic properties of a system. The intrinsic properties of this system, referred to as this universe, the one that arose out of the vacuum, and those intrinsic properties are sufficient to allow for individual singular and unique instantiations of sentient rational beings to arise out of this universe. In fact one of those beings in particular, identified Himself as having been an instantiation of Himself, before there was an instantiation of this world itself.
If He decided to create a full grown oak tree in the middle of a forest, and the next day a biologist thoroughly examined it, would the tree be distinguishable from it’s acorn grown neighbour? Is He thus faking the biologist out? No, the biologist just doesn’t have access to all the information.
It’s the same thing about the universe. Science tells us it grew from an acorn, so to speak. That doesn’t preclude an omnipotent being from having created it in a day. If He did, He didn’t lie or fake us out- the info is right there in the bible.
And not apropos to you, but what’s with all the people in this thread assuming the universe/multiverse encompasses the Lord, and not the other way around?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.