God and the nature of the Universe

[Cheerful Charlie]

The theologians tell us that God created all things, and that nothing exists outside of God. God is transcendent and created all other things. This then must include, the very logic of the universe, the laws and regularites of the Universe. God would naturally create the best of such things that could be created.

God is said by these same theologians to be good, and to love us. This we know because God has sent us a trustworthy revelation, the Bible, the explain such things.
[h=1]John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/h]If God is good, he would if possible eliminate all moral evil. Since God creates the nature of the Universe, its logic, its laws, its rule, this would be a trivial operation for God. God could create all men with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

Obviously, moral evil exists.

So we have to either give up the claim God creates the logic and laws of the Universe, or the claim God is good and is concerned with us.

If the latter, then we give up the claim that we have a reliable revelation from God. If the former, we have to explain where the logic, laws and rules come from if not from God.

As far as I can see, this construction calls theological reasoning about the existence of God into question.

Perfect Being Theology

PBT following Anselm claims God must be the most perfect of all beings. There are good things, some things better, and at the top, supreme Good. That is God. PBT follows this line of theorizing to erect a maximalized concept of God. But my idea above sinks PBT and Anselm's claims. A perfectly good God, who does not have the attribute of being good but is goodness incarnate would not allow moral evil.

If God creates the Logic of the Universe, we would again, see no moral evil.

 

[Treedbear]

... God would naturally create the best of such things that could be created. ...

God could create all men with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

Obviously, moral evil exists.

So we have to either give up the claim God creates the logic and laws of the Universe, or the claim God is good and is concerned with us.

...
Perfect Being Theology

PBT following Anselm claims God must be the most perfect of all beings. There are good things, some things better, and at the top, supreme Good. That is God. PBT follows this line of theorizing to erect a maximalized concept of God. But my idea above sinks PBT and Anselm's claims. A perfectly good God, who does not have the attribute of being good but is goodness incarnate would not allow moral evil. ...

Unless this is a pantheistic God there is nothing natural about God. God is not of nature, God created nature.

Could God create another God that was as perfect? I imagine most theists would say no. Anything God creates must be less perfect. Therefore evil. Without some concept of an absolute (dare I say, perfect) evil, it is relative to one's experience (among other types of bias, of course).

I never understood the idea of God as "the most perfect of all beings", or more perfect than one could imagine. That seems to leave a lot of uncovered ground. Kind of like saying God is simply less imperfect. It doesn't quite get to transcendent. But it would leave room for an even higher a priori source of morality. But then where did that come from?

 

[Gila Guerilla]

... God would naturally create the best of such things that could be created. ...

God could create all men with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

Obviously, moral evil exists.

So we have to either give up the claim God creates the logic and laws of the Universe, or the claim God is good and is concerned with us.

...
Perfect Being Theology

PBT following Anselm claims God must be the most perfect of all beings. There are good things, some things better, and at the top, supreme Good. That is God. PBT follows this line of theorizing to erect a maximalized concept of God. But my idea above sinks PBT and Anselm's claims. A perfectly good God, who does not have the attribute of being good but is goodness incarnate would not allow moral evil. ...

Unless this is a pantheistic God there is nothing natural about God. God is not of nature, God created nature.

Could God create another God that was as perfect? I imagine most theists would say no. Anything God creates must be less perfect. Therefore evil. Without some concept of an absolute (dare I say, perfect) evil, it is relative to one's experience (among other types of bias, of course).

I never understood the idea of God as "the most perfect of all beings", or more perfect than one could imagine. That seems to leave a lot of uncovered ground. Kind of like saying God is simply less imperfect. It doesn't quite get to transcendent. But it would leave room for an even higher a priori source of morality. But then where did that come from?

IMHO that is an excellent point Treedbear. and according to Anselm, (theologian and philosopher, CE. 1033–1109): "God is a being greater than which none can be conceived"; (and if that being existed in reality, it would be greater than that). So it must be that "God" exists as the greatest possible being.

The problem is that all of this rests on the human mind. The argument depends upon what humans can conceive. But it tells us nothing about what that god is or is like. So Anselm's argument is only for a greatest being, which he labels "God". But it doesn't necessarily have to be the god of the Bible or the Quran.

This supposed god could be one that puts about false ideas about what the greatest being is, and mischievously tries to convince people that it the Abrahamic god, (Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah), when really it's no such thing. The conception of "God" in the three major religions could arguably NOT be the greatest. There might be something greater than that, which is responsible for everything, including leading lots of currently religious people astray, for whatever its own purposes might be.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I never understood the idea of God as "the most perfect of all beings", or more perfect than one could imagine. That seems to leave a lot of uncovered ground. Kind of like saying God is simply less imperfect. It doesn't quite get to transcendent. But it would leave room for an even higher a priori source of morality. But then where did that come from?

IMHO that is an excellent point Treedbear. and according to Anselm, (theologian and philosopher, CE. 1033–1109): "God is a being "; (and if that being existed in reality, it would be greater than that). So it must be that "God" exists as the greatest possible being.

The problem is that all of this rests on the human mind. The argument depends upon what humans can conceive. But it tells us nothing about what that god is or is like. So Anselm's argument is only for a greatest being, which he labels "God". But it doesn't necessarily have to be the god of the Bible or the Quran. ...

Anselm, that's the guy. Unless there was something lost in translation the standard for Godness is the human imagination. And now that you provide the quote it seems its only necessary to match that level, as in "... greater than which none can be conceived". So just as great is just fine. But Anselm seems to have been about the need to first have faith, and only afterward the requirement of reason. I think later philosophers such as Descartes re-introduced and tried to exploit the Platonic concept of absolute perfection. That might have been less appealing during Anselm's time.

 

[bleubird]

The less time we spend on the nature of imaginary beings and the more time we spend on how the known universe works,seems like a bit better.

 

[Malintent]

That is an ancient discussion. Here is a more relevant discussion:

Vern: Do you think Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman?
Teddy: What are you, cracked?
Vern: Why not? I saw the other day. He was carrying five elephants in one hand!
Teddy: Boy, you don't know nothing! Mighty Mouse is a cartoon. Superman's a real guy. There's no way a cartoon could beat up a real guy.
Vern: Yeah, maybe you're right. It'd be a good fight, though

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Tendency to Meet Uselessness Half Way

The less time we spend on the nature of imaginary beings and the more time we spend on how the known universe works,seems like a bit better.

That doesn't go far enough, perhaps because you are reacting to concern with the unknowable. With that as a boundary, you can only go so far as an alternative. Satisfaction with merely knowing has paralyzed science. To progress, the scientific method must always ask, "What can we do with this knowledge?" For example, when the existence of the neutrino was confirmed in 1956, scientists should have started working on using it to map the entire subsurface of the Earth down to the core. We could locate all the minerals, oil, and water by how the few neutrinos that would bounce off matter at each distance beneath the surface would be reflected when bouncing back to a satellite. So it would be a combination of a Geiger Counter and a GPS.

 

[skepticalbip]

The less time we spend on the nature of imaginary beings and the more time we spend on how the known universe works,seems like a bit better.

That doesn't go far enough, perhaps because you are reacting to concern with the unknowable. With that as a boundary, you can only go so far as an alternative. Satisfaction with merely knowing has paralyzed science. To progress, the scientific method must always ask, "What can we do with this knowledge?" For example, when the existence of the neutrino was confirmed in 1956, scientists should have started working on using it to map the entire subsurface of the Earth down to the core. We could locate all the minerals, oil, and water by how the few neutrinos that would bounce off matter at each distance beneath the surface would be reflected when bouncing back to a satellite. So it would be a combination of a Geiger Counter and a GPS.

You seem to be conflating science and engineering. Science is concerned with answering the questions of what is and how it works - understanding the universe. Engineering is concerned with the question of how can we apply this understanding to put it to practical use.

 

[Malintent]

The less time we spend on the nature of imaginary beings and the more time we spend on how the known universe works,seems like a bit better.

That doesn't go far enough, perhaps because you are reacting to concern with the unknowable. With that as a boundary, you can only go so far as an alternative. Satisfaction with merely knowing has paralyzed science. To progress, the scientific method must always ask, "What can we do with this knowledge?" For example, when the existence of the neutrino was confirmed in 1956, scientists should have started working on using it to map the entire subsurface of the Earth down to the core. We could locate all the minerals, oil, and water by how the few neutrinos that would bounce off matter at each distance beneath the surface would be reflected when bouncing back to a satellite. So it would be a combination of a Geiger Counter and a GPS.

Nonsense. The lot of it.

Science is unconcerned with the 'unknowable'. Philosophers play with unsubstantial notions. The goal of Science is acquiring knowledge utilizing a methodology that ensures reliable outcomes. "Satisfaction with "merely" knowing? similarly useless observations would be "our education system is merely interested in educating".. our healthcare system is merely interested in caring for health...
The scientific method is not what you appear to think it is. It is a reliable tool for acquiring knowledge. It is not a useful tool for reflecting on the utility of knowledge.

Your idea about using neutrinos demonstrates a lack of awareness of what knowledge we had in 1956 about them, and what we know now.


A Brief History of the Neutrino (from http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html)

1931 - A hypothetical particle is predicted by the theorist Wolfgang Pauli. Pauli based his prediction on the fact that energy and momentum did not appear to be conserved in certain radioactive decays. Pauli suggested that this missing energy might be carried off, unseen, by a neutral particle which was escaping detection.
1934 - Enrico Fermi develops a comprehensive theory of radioactive decays, including Pauli's hypothetical particle, which Fermi coins the neutrino (Italian: "little neutral one"). With inclusion of the neutrino, Fermi's theory accurately explains many experimentally observed results.
1959 - Discovery of a particle fitting the expected characteristics of the neutrino is announced by Clyde Cowan and Fred Reines (a founding member of Super-Kamiokande; UCI professor emeritus and recipient of the 1995 Nobel Prize in physics for his contribution to the discovery). This neutrino is later determined to be the partner of the electron.
1962 - Experiments at Brookhaven National Laboratory and CERN, the European Laboratory for Nuclear Physics make a surprising discovery: neutrinos produced in association with muons do not behave the same as those produced in association with electrons. They have, in fact, discovered a second type of neutrino (the muon neutrino).
1968 - The first experiment to detect (electron) neutrinos produced by the Sun's burning (using a liquid Chlorine target deep underground) reports that less than half the expected neutrinos are observed. This is the origin of the long-standing "solar neutrino problem." The possibility that the missing electron neutrinos may have transformed into another type (undetectable to this experiment) is soon suggested, but unreliability of the solar model on which the expected neutrino rates are based is initially considered a more likely explanation.
1978 - The tau particle is discovered at SLAC, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. It is soon recognized to be a heavier version of the electron and muon, and its decay exhibits the same apparent imbalance of energy and momentum that led Pauli to predict the existence of the neutrino in 1931. The existence of a third neutrino associated with the tau is hence inferred, although this neutrino has yet to be directly observed.
1985 - The IMB experiment, a large water detector searching for proton decay but which also detects neutrinos, notices that fewer muon-neutrino interactions than expected are observed. The anomaly is at first believed to be an artifact of detector inefficiencies.
1985 - A Russian team reports measurement, for the first time, of a non-zero neutrino mass. The mass is extremely small (10,000 times less than the mass of the electron), but subsequent attempts to independently reproduce the measurement do not succeed.
1987 - Kamiokande, another large water detector looking for proton decay, and IMB detect a simultaneous burst of neutrinos from Supernova 1987A.
1988 - Kamiokande, another water detector looking for proton decay but better able to distinguish muon neutrino interactions from those of electron neutrino, reports that they observe only about 60% of the expected number of muon-neutrino interactions.
1989 - The Frejus and NUSEX experiments, much smaller than either Kamiokande or IMB, and using iron rather than water as the neutrino target, report no deficit of muon-neutrino interactions.
1989 - Experiments at CERN's Large Electron-Positron (LEP) accelerator determine that no additional neutrinos beyond the three already known can exist.
1989 - Kamiokande becomes the second experiment to detect neutrinos from the Sun, and confirms the long-standing anomaly by finding only about 1/3 the expected rate.
1990 - After an upgrade which improves the ability to identify muon-neutrino interactions, IMB confirms the deficit of muon neutrino interactions reported by Kamiokande.
1994 - Kamiokande finds a deficit of high-energy muon-neutrino interactions. Muon-neutrinos travelling the greatest distances from the point of production to the detector exhibit the greatest depletion.
1994 - The Kamiokande and IMB groups collaborate to test the ability of water detectors to distinguish muon- and electron-neutrino interactions, using a test beam at the KEK accelerator laboratory. The results confirm the validity of earlier measurements. The two groups will go on to form the nucleus of the Super-Kamiokande project.
1996 - The Super-Kamiokande detector begins operation.
1997 - The Soudan-II experiment becomes the first iron detector to observe the disappearance of muon neutrinos. The rate of disappearance agrees with that observed by Kamiokande and IMB.
1997 - Super-Kamiokande reports a deficit of cosmic-ray muon neutrinos and solar electron neutrinos, at rates agreeing with measurements by earlier experiments.
1998 - The Super-Kamiokande collaboration announces evidence of non-zero neutrino mass at the Neutrino '98 conference.

 

[remez]

A Christian Theologian would point out that you have created a straw man here at several levels.

The theologians tell us that God created all things, and that nothing exists outside of God. God is transcendent and created all other things. This then must include, the very logic of the universe, the laws and regularites of the Universe. God would naturally create the best of such things that could be created.

-Created all things that are logically possible. This is important. God cannot create a married bachelor.

-The laws of logic are different than the laws that describe our nature. The logic was not created the laws of the universe were. Logic is eternal the universe is not eternal. My point here is not to debate you on this point, but to point out that you do not understand the theological views that you are challenging. To conflate those two entities as created, creates a straw man.

-God would “logically” create only the best. Doesn’t that judgement of rationale “the best”, depend on the purpose of the creation in question. Example, isn’t more power and more memory more speed better electronically than less, but would you want your phone to be the size of Tianhe-2. Now logically if purpose has to be considered, then getting the theological doctrine correct would be important.

If God is good, he would if possible eliminate all moral evil. Since God creates the nature of the Universe, its logic, its laws, its rule, this would be a trivial operation for God. God could create all men with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

-Theologians reasonably do not see the coexistence of the Biblical God and moral evil to be contrary to one another’s existence. You are the one trying to make a case that their mutual existence is a contradiction. How so?

Specifically are you concerned with an intellectual issue or an emotional issue? Each solution takes a different course. You seem to be addressing the intellectual problem of evil POE. More specifically the logical POE rather than a probabilistic POE. Again each of these also has a different solution. So which is it? I dare not assume. When you start blurring all these different issues together the solution gets blurred and misrepresented as well.

-Again the “laws of this universe” are not eternal, logic is eternal. Theologically speaking the “laws of the universe” were created, however logic is an eternal attribute of God and was not created.
So…………

God could create all men with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

….seems to be presenting a logical impossibility. A hidden division of zero to make a case that cannot be made.

Also you seem to present here that each procreation event has no inheritance of consequence but is new start over creation event? Your presentation of “ALL” here creates an additional concern and is addressed by several other theological doctrines blurred out by your unclear logic.

Obviously, moral evil exists.

I concur.

So we have to either give up the claim God creates the logic and laws of the Universe, or the claim God is good and is concerned with us.

Again your conflation of logic and “laws of the universe” are a blurring of the lines of distinction and don’t reflect the proper theological view.

If it is your purpose here (not clear) is to present a logical POE to conclude the mutual existence of a good God and moral evil leads to the conclusion that a good God cannot exist, then you have not made the case that the theological position is wrong because you did not address proper theological reasoning to begin with. You presented a straw man. It will fool the under informed though.

As you well know this topic is far deeper than your straw man presentation.

 

[atrib]

-The laws of logic are different than the laws that describe our nature. The logic was not created the laws of the universe were. Logic is eternal the universe is not eternal.

....

-Again the “laws of this universe” are not eternal, logic is eternal. Theologically speaking the “laws of the universe” were created, however logic is an eternal attribute of God and was not created.

I don't understand why you are arguing that logic is eternal and was not created. MW defines logic as:

a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

Logic is a man made tool. I don't understand how logic would exist without a sufficiently advanced brain to develop and use it. Or why you would consider it to be eternal.

 

[Malintent]

I think that is what he meant... by eternal I think he meant universal.. like math. Yes, it is a tool created by man to describe the universe.. especially useful for describing the really really really big parts... and really really really small parts. logic is a good tool for demonstrating the reliability of a conclusion... works very well with math and science.
The principle that enables them to work so well is the consistency of the universal laws of nature... those are what's 'out there' that makes rationality possible.

 

[remez]

I don't understand why you are arguing that logic is eternal and was not created. MW defines logic as:

a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

Logic is a man made tool. I don't understand how logic would exist without a sufficiently advanced brain to develop and use it. Or why you would consider it to be eternal.

Here…………

Logic is a man made tool.

Before there were humans on the earth was the statement, “There are no humans on the earth, true?”

I don't understand how logic would exist without a sufficiently advanced brain to develop and use it. Or why you would consider it to be eternal.

Theists overtly purport that the creator is that necessary advanced eternal mind.

 

[remez]

I think that is what he meant... by eternal I think he meant universal.. like math. Yes, it is a tool created by man to describe the universe.. especially useful for describing the really really really big parts... and really really really small parts. logic is a good tool for demonstrating the reliability of a conclusion... works very well with math and science.
The principle that enables them to work so well is the consistency of the universal laws of nature... those are what's 'out there' that makes rationality possible.

Point of distinction….

I think that is what he meant... by eternal I think he meant universal..

Beyond the temporal universe.

 

[iolo]

There seems, in America, to be a fascination with reliving debates from over a century ago. What is the point of it?

 

[remez]

There seems, in America, to be a fascination with reliving debates from over a century ago. What is the point of it?

Really?

Then by all means demonstrate your advanced maturity and move on.

 

[iolo]

There seems, in America, to be a fascination with reliving debates from over a century ago. What is the point of it?

Really?

Then by all means demonstrate your advanced maturity and move on.

Well, I do try, but you keep getting in the way with all this 'God' stuff. I suppose a high proportion of Americans have only recently come across Nineteenth Century Doubt, whereas back in my childhood all Anglicans took it for granted.

 

[4321lynx]

The theologians tell us that God created all things, and that nothing exists outside of God. God is transcendent and created all other things. This then must include, the very logic of the universe, the laws and regularites of the Universe. God would naturally create the best of such things that could be created.

OK, so God being "responsible" for everything, must = The Big Bang. And we humans have pronounced humans to be his (i.e. The Big Bang's) best creation (for the time being) in our solar system. And the theologians and other philosophers have started thinking and making other pronouncements. And the scientists have done their thing and have proved and disproved various things and said that at present we do not know whether we are made of waves or vibrating strings, do not know what dark matter is, do not know what dark energy is, and do not know how, why, or wherefore, no matter what the theologians say. But that is here and now; in years or aeons to come we may find out, and even now in other parts of the universe the Big Bang (called God by some wiseacres) has had more luck and created creatures who understand and can prove all or most of the how, why, and wherefore etc

Obviously, moral evil exists.

For us. That's bloody bad luck because it does not exist for GodTheBigBang. He/She/It is quite unconcerned with individuals, human or non-human; quite unconcerned with waves, strings, particles or galaxies, or multiple universes, no matter what the wiseacres say or believe.

So morality is up to us.

And we have GodTheBigBang to thank for it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Before there were humans on the earth was the statement, “There are no humans on the earth, true?”

I can't understand that statement, what with the word 'true' inside the quotes. It doesn't parse with the rest of your sentence.

And before there were humans on Earth, of what value would a statement about 'humans' be? Who would use the word? What would they mean by the word?

 

[abaddon]

Beyond the temporal universe.

Logic is from beyond time. Man, that is some deep shit.