Author Topic: Is God self evident in the nature of the Cosmos? (Read 4569 times)

LaramieHirsch · « **on:** April 07, 2012, 11:47:35 AM »

I think that, in my life, I have been convinced of God's presence in this world through the observance of His Holy Spirit in nature.

But also, I think that nature itself illustrates God's presence clearly for men to see.

Yet, I have never explored this; I've only assumed it.

So...

Is God's Presence and handiwork evident in nature? How?

Is it clear that it is the Christian God in nature?

alaric · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2012, 12:06:45 PM »

If not the Christian God, then which? Zeus? Jupiter? Odin? Mithras?

The church teaches us that the Lord is Almighty, omni-present, omniscient, eternal without beginning or end. Is there any other being in any religion there ever was in comparison to the God of the Christian bible? I believe the concept of Allah and the Koran are a cheap imitation.

Also the mere fact of a ordered,predictable universe reflected through the order in nature of grand design is evidence itself of a grand designer.

We also have to consider "First Cause". Everything is a reaction from a cause somewhere, there must have been a first "causer" at some point.

Unless you believe the universe came about by "chance" and even that would take more faith than believing in a supreme being that created everything.

IMO.

Vladimir · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2012, 12:58:05 PM »

Yes.

Once again, please reference "Providence" by Garrigou-Lagrange. The answer is in the first section of the book.

Trinity · « **Reply #3 on:** April 08, 2012, 10:27:02 AM »

Ugh! As usual the most germane and most interesting subjects on this forum fly by with little or no response. It puzzles me why Catholics show so little interest in their God and His heaven. This really ought to be THE hot subject.

I like especially to see God's work in the cosmos. The docuмentary "Hubble" brought some things to the fore in my mind, specifically a moon with 2000 degree below temp. One has to realize that earth was created for man and man was created for earth. Such a perfect fit could not have been an accident.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #4 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:21:42 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

Ugh! As usual the most germane and most interesting subjects on this forum fly by with little or no response. It puzzles me why Catholics show so little interest in their God and His heaven. This really ought to be THE hot subject.

Yeah, puzzles me, too. I don't understand. At this point, the Faith and Logic thread I started on CAF (For which this question is being asked) has drawn over 3000 views so far.

Surely, here we can put together some sort of ideas?

Trinity · « **Reply #5 on:** April 08, 2012, 11:51:29 AM »

So what are they saying over there? Have you ever heard of a paiche?

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2012, 12:32:54 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

So what are they saying over there? Have you ever heard of a paiche?

Yeah. I know of the paiche fish.

What are they saying? Well, basically, the thread I started at CAF is an exploration of applying logic to faith. But since I don't have much experience in discussing pure logic with people, and since I am a poor apologist, I've approached everything from the purest manner I can. As suggested on this forum by someone, I am utilizing axioms--shared assumptions--between the faithless and myself.

For the last three weeks, I've been trying to slowly build up a series of axioms which we can both agree on. I have had no particular direction to go in, really. I am only aiming for one theme (I do not know if I can achieve it) --to illustrate the presence and handiwork of God in nature.

Here's the link:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=658727

- - -

Here's the axioms we've established so far:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (... Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers...)

Axiom 3: The Universe is a closed system.

Axiom 4: The universe will attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). (This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology.) (Axiom 4 depends on Axiom 3.)

Axiom 5: It is possible that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments.

Axiom 6: It is possible that there are consciences and intelligences in our Cosmos which are invisible to our detection.

- - -

Here's the next set of axioms we might agree on:

Originally Posted by Jelrak TB
OK.

It is possible. If such beings were to reside on Earth, would not some consequence arise from their necessary proximity to mankind?

(Me) Not necessarily. If the objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 exist undetected, then there would not necessarily be serious social consequences. Could this be Axiom 7?

Yet, if objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 exist, although undetected, then it is possible there may be some sort of consequence from their proximity, detectable or undetectable. Could this be Axiom 8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelrak TB

OK.
To clarify, would not some of their activities be the subject of observation and hold a capability of being measured?

(Me) However, if the objects of Axiom 5 or the beings of Axiom 6 are occasionally detected or obviously revealed to humans in some way, these undetectable things may appear as curious events of our human past. Can we agree this would be Axiom 9?

Trinity · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2012, 01:07:29 PM »

Hmmm. Are these spiritual beings or physical?

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2012, 01:19:41 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Hmmm. Are these spiritual beings or physical?

No idea. Not really going in a particular direction yet, although the guy I'm conversing with, Jerlak, has proposed a HYDRA OF QUESTIONS already. I do my best to answer all his stuff, but labeling mine has been simpler and more tangible.

I figure, when I talk about undetectable things, in my mind I am considering angels, demons, and the Holy Spirit of God.

But I think when he hears us talking about it, he may be thinking invisible UFOs, ghosts, undiscovered species on another dimensional level.

Lybus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2012, 01:20:32 PM »

In answer to the thread question, strictly speaking, the existence of God is not self-evident, as taught by Thomas Aquinas. In order to arrive at the existence of God, argument is required. In other words, there are some things that we can assume, or that are self evident, such as the fact that you and I exist, or that there is a world outside of us. However, it requires argument and logic to arrive at the conclusion that the world outside of us was created, or that we were created. When it comes to a philosophical question like this, you have to be very careful about your terms.

And I can always expect Trinity to be there when there is a philosophical/theological thread going on :wink:

By the way Trinity, about a year ago you asked if Jesus Christ was capable of being tempted, and virtually everyone said that he could not. However, I wish to admit that I was wrong in saying that. Christ has a dual nature: man and God. As God, Jesus Christ cannot be tempted because he is pure actuality, which means he cannot change because there is no potential in him, basically meaning that God is already as perfect as he can be, so he cannot be tempted because to be tempted would mean that he had not reached perfection (this is contrary to us, who have a desire to perfect our nature because we can always improve our nature, and it is temptation that fools us into believing that by committing sin, we can obtain a good and obtain a higher level of perfection).

HOWEVER, Christ as MAN WAS capable of being tempted. This can be seen with Adam and Eve, who were perfect human beings without sin for a short period of time, and they were clearly tempted. Also, in scripture, the devil tempted Christ in the desert.

Sorry to go off topic but I just wanted to clear that up.

Lybus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 08, 2012, 01:36:39 PM »

I must say that for Axiom 3, not every atheist is going to agree with that. There are some scientists who theorize that new material is added to our universe through black holes or worm holes or some such, possibly coming from another universe (or perhaps from God himself). It's still a bit hazy for argumentation I think.

This isn't really an argument but more of an observation. Man is inclined to spiritual things virtually by his very nature. I doubt you'd ever find a tribal village or civilization that did not have a religion. Atheism is, in my opinion, a psychological problem more than an argumentative one. Almost all of the intelligent atheists I know have had either absent or very weak father figures. I have almost given up arguing with atheists about the existence of God. Aliens have substituted Angels, and humanity has substituted God. Atheists have to worship something, whether it be themselves or the State.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #11 on:** April 08, 2012, 01:59:41 PM »

Quote from: Lybus

In answer to the thread question, strictly speaking, the existence of God is not self-evident, as taught by Thomas Aquinas. In order to arrive at the existence of God, argument is required.

Honestly, I am not only not a pro with apologetics, but I am also not a pro with philosophy. And so, I am not extremely familiar with Aquinas, though I have read some of him in my life.

Do you know where, in particular, this fact is discussed by him? I truly would like to read it. Someone on here has already turned me onto the writings of one particular priest. Perhaps being directed to this section of Aquinas can help me get started with his work.

Trinity · « **Reply #12 on:** April 08, 2012, 02:33:28 PM »

Lybus, good to see you, but you are wrong. My error was in thinking God could sin based on taking His omnipotence to extremes. Sin is a trespass and since God owns everything, no trespass is possible.

Don't know about theological arguments, I simply seek to know God better the only way I can. Carry on, you two.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #13 on:** April 08, 2012, 02:58:44 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Sin is a trespass and since God owns everything, no trespass is possible.

This is precisely the sort of thing I'm seeking.

More things like this!

Jeralak on that thread has a few conversational hydra heads approaching this kind of topic. Check it out:

If God were to have Free Will, would he be able to choose to do evil?

- No. Evil is the opposite of His will. Perhaps, if He were to be inconsistent, we were to consider His actions evil.

Since the question was whether he might be *able* to choose to do evil, how is it consistent that he would not be *able* to do so given it would run contrary to his will? Is this not the same as stating that he *could* not do so because he *would* not wish to do so? For clarity, is God's own will capable of thwarting God's own will?

Alternately, how might it be conceived to be inconsistent of him to be *able* to do evil, but freely choose not to?

- - -

I answered with my own type of response to the latter, but I think that Trinity's statement really clears it up better.

Trinity · « **Reply #14 on:** April 08, 2012, 03:24:29 PM »

Don't know if I can help you, but I'll try. As I came to see, God can do what can't be done. We must be one thing or the other, but He can be both. As life, He died. As heavenly, He descended to hell. (Which makes one wonder how hell remained hell.) Now we all know you and I can sin. Not a problem. But can you steal your own property? God can do everything we can do, but because of His unique ownership, it is not a sin.