Comments by "The Archivist" (@LostArchivist) on "Space Matters" channel.

@ShaneMcinally Of course, but that does not mean we should not seek to know what we can along the journey home. Is God not among us now and does He not seek us to be walking and speaking with Him now? Not to the point of distraction, but as children in wonder at the handiwork of our Father.
5
@edk484 Actually it doesn't matter metaphysically if there was a physical beginning, per say only a supreme Creator avoids an infinite causal regress that has no real explaining power for an actual cause. The finite beginning of the world does fulfill.Sacred Scripture though and so we know there is one.
4
@ufobrownsugar7948 That is not true. God is not at all overcome or undermined by the natural sciences. He is the Author of the very order they study and draw upon.
2
@rationald6799 You seem to have too narrow a view of what constitutes evidence though. And also define argument, are warrants part of this or are they evidence in your claim? You say arguments are not evidence, where is your evidence to prove that argument is true?
2
@Lulu_LouReed God's essence is His existence. He is not an existence He us the very act of To Be Himself. Ipsum esse subsistens. That is what God meant by His Name to Moses at the burning bush. Time is a type of thing as a parameter of physical space, existence is a precondition to time, therefore, God can not be bound by time as He is To Be Himself, and as the One Who.created all that is, that includes time as time is a function of space and since space must possess dimensionality and probability among other naturea that must be in order for space as it is to be. Thus space itself can not be the root of all things as it has preconditions for extant natures it derives from. Notably ones that are mathematical, and thereby logical in nature. Somethingness as in specificity of natures, comes about in creation as a reflection of the nature of God as One God in Three Divine Persons. In reflection, all thingz exist as a multiplicity of things in one reality. And even if there is a multiverse, the universes that make it up are still ontologically connected. The world has a nature and therefore a structure of some sort. So at its fundamental basis must be an organizing agent.
1
@Charlie_Marley Well here is the thing. If the base premises that there is a personal intellect that created everything and this intellect communicates with us in a certain way but seeks to preserve our freedom to choose relationship with Him or not. Then one who does know this intellect would logically and justifiably confidently believe all He reveals as both certain and proven. God knows all things, but as the Second Vatican Council has said, for the Catholic Church, we are certain of what has been given to us as Truth, but over time, within continuity of what the Church already knows, doctorine does develop. And the Church only speaks infallibly on Faith and morals.
1
@andrek5008 God is not bound by time or space and not physical reality if He is their Author and cause. God`s essence is His existence, so all good in all things are found infinitely and perfectly in Him and creatures (anything created) are imperfect reflections of a limited aspect of His goodness. As for how God makes ex nihilo, He is the infinite, eternal, perfect, perfectly actualized (as in He is always all He could be) , omniscient, omnipotentent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent Creator. He wills it and it is so, what would prevent it? Nothingness? Even if one believes in ontological inertia, nothingness of this kind, nonbeing has no existence to have such inertia. Time is tied to space and finite perception, so that is a thing of creatures. Any creature takes their existence from God creating them, so no creature could. And the laws of mathematics, and logic more generally are from the Divine Intellect if God is as the Church understand Him. So God makes from nothing as He wills as He possesses the properties to do so, and no thing logically can be to oppose His Will.
1
@Charlie_Marley I never claimed you did, I simply stated the theistic premise. Citing The Bible would be circular logic for proving God exists, not that He wants a personal relationship with us. If God us real, pointing to 3000 years of people claiming He wants/does relate with us, is a solid evidence for God desiring personal relationship with us. As for the Catholic Church committing evil. There is first the need to seperate anti-Catholic propaganda from true evils done by members of the Church. Then one must show these people were acting in accord with the teachings and authority of the Church. One obvious thing sticks today, the abuse crisis and cover up, but also some of the popes of the 1100s come to mind as well as the treatment by some to Native American tribes, and as internal evidence, the execution of St.Joan of Arc. Clearly members of the Church can do great harm, but no one can validly claim the Church claims we are perfect. The point of Christianitu is all of us are sinners and so need Christ to save us from the evil of our oen hearts and those of others. We are to cooperate with God's grace, but many do not. God as shown in Sacred Scripture call us to account for this scandal that leads people away from Him. This can occur because though brought into Christ's Church, we are still on the purgative way and are not saved fully from the possibility to sin until death. God does not take away our free will. It is similar for most people believing false religions. Over time, after we fell, whether by malice, neglect, ignorance, or other faults of humanity or simply cultural entropy, and/or other natural and preternatural causes, truth here as in other areas has been lost in various ways. Most religions contain elements of the Truth, as humans are oriented to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, but we can choose evil and we have fallible knowledge. What the Church claims is that God ensures the Truth and means of salvation are preserved in Holy Mother Church regardless and at far too often times in spite of the evil of Her members. Thus, the continued existence of the Church in spite of attempts within and from without, becomes another line of evidence for the sake of Her witness to the Gospel. Even at the Crucificion, all of the Apostles but St.John betrat or abandon Christ. Because, Christ is the Redeemer and Saviir, not us, so even the Apostles needed to be redeemed and saved. It is so there us no ambiguity Who is at work saving us all and Who is thus Divine without underming anyone's free will.
1
@Charlie_Marley I would however inquire as to how we are to make sense of anything existing if there is no.Creator to provide the order we clearly see that things exist and however can not make themselves from nothing. i.e. no.spontaneous generation from nothing, but are beholden to rules.
1
@rationald6799 How is it fallacious to assume there is a first that lead to all other things but lies beyond them in its nature in a world where things have causes but none can initiate existence of the natural order itself within the natural order? It is fallacious to throw up ones hands and say it magically just is for no reason. This is not the SCP universe, there is a definite way to all that is. Why should that not be so at the origin?
1
@rationald6799 There is order and a world still playing out. Why would you expect to the grandeur of a king`s castle when we are still in the gatehouse being processed? This is a liminal phase of things made to be passing. We are in the antechamber, not the throne room. Besides some elements are only made via supernova and most natural disasters are just advancements of larger systems that over time lead to greater diversity across time than if there were no such pressures clearing the way. And it forces us to work together and care about one another to overcome obstacles with real stakes on the line. Almost nothing is utterly deleterious.
1
@rationald6799 We have the fullness of Truth but others to varying degrees have some incomplete aspects of it. If God is the Truth and Creator of the world, even in a fallen humanity it is expected that some seeds of truth are given via nature, reason, and incorrect or incomplete understandings of Revelation. So no, they are not simply wrong, only partially so.
1
@rationald6799 No other cause but a conscious one can lead to the explanation why something came from nothing but does not still. Any mindless process would be continuing as it was infinitely and would still be causing new ex nihilo events and we should not expect any stability from such a system there is no reason such a cause does not contradict itself and send things utterly randomly. But everything corresponds to Mathematical principles including quantum mechanics at the small scake and relativity at the large scale. There is ubiquitous interconnected consistent causality, patterning and structure. A mindless first cause can not do that because it would then not be first if it had rules because it is subject to unxplained rules that preceed it and so push the question beyond it. No matter how great and complex a framework of mindless structure you create it still does not explain the structure, it just tacks on another floor.
1
@rationald6799 Then give another category and we can discuss it. I can think of none but minds, non-conscious matter, and systematic rule structures as potential causes and neither of the latter alone or together are up to the task. What other potentially fundemental principle is conceivable? Chaos would not lead to structure and nothing would only remain nothing.)
1
@rationald6799 Evidence is not needed to prove a deductive argument. If no alternative can exist, then it simply must be. So come up with an alternative viable category, if there is none then.your challenge is incoherent because no alternatives exist and so there is no comparison to be made against. Besides, you have assumed there is no.God and not justified the claim of your belief either. Science is not a proof because science studies natural things and can not by its nature study those things that may lie beyond it. Its methodology simply are not designed for that task. So simply saying science has not found any conclusive evidence for God is not evidence either (and would have to be justified besides) any more than saying one did not find the solution to the integral of their function in their study of the history of WWII. So prove to me their is even a potential alternative to even consider looking at evidence against.
1
@rationald6799 Well first question is if you even believe in Truth. If not the concept must be shown first. Then that there is a supernatural order. Then that these correspond to the Faith. If you don't hold the category is real, proving an instance of it makes no sense. I know you do not believe in the second prerequisite. What of a singular unchanging Truth? Do you believe that exists and we can know it when we sufficiently find it?
1
@rationald6799 It does work if the notion.of causality only pertains to contingent natural things. That is to say, things who's nature is not the act of existence in themselves. God's essence is His existence means He does not need a cause as His being is self-subsitent. Your objection is equating the program with the hardware. It does not hold.
1
@rationald6799 You need to believe your senses and the instruments you are using are reliable and that the rules of the Universe are in fact unchanging. Besides a scale like that is itself something you must trust as conveying the information it is said to give. And how do you know by testing all truth must be testable? Or are you merely assuming it as a brute fact?
1
@rationald6799 You have not given any reason to think there is any alternative but a mind, that is itself evidence unless a reason to doubt it can be given. You have given no reason but your assertion that evidence is even needed.
1
@rationald6799 That does not provide an alternative explanation for how a structured order came to be when it neither in mindless matter, systematic rule structure nor the two together can explain existence as it is when a First Cause bsing a conscious agent can. That simply says there might be some things we do not understand. If no possible alternative is viable, the mere hinting at partial evidence is not enough to warrant rejecting the explanation out of hand. But if there are many reasons as you claim. Show them and this can justify the need for a greater warrant than no alternative being apparent. Then we can compare evidence since we have actual specific matters to address.
1
@rationald6799 I can say the same for your opposing position as you were stating it. But fine let's try this. How much do you know about Chaos Theory?
1
@rationald6799 I can. I was simply trying to show you that the presuppositions of the materialistic expiricist are faulty. It doesn`t matter if you are given evidence if you do not understand the variables that underly the topic of inquiry. I can work with it either way for what I am going to do. But I have given you evidence. That there is ubiquitous intelligable structure to the universe is evidence in support of my argument demonstrating the existence of God. My evidence is how reality is put together. You don`t want mere evidence it seems, you want a demonstration of how it supports it.
1
@rationald6799 What Chaos Theory allows us to do is demonstrate and test for the nature of the relationship of science and Mathematics and how complexity comes about and determine the nature of Mathematics relevant to our question. From there we build our proof for God. What I am writing here is a roadmap, so we don`t get lost on the way. I will be working on this between RL stuff, so please allow for a bit of time.
1
@rationald6799 So we may do anything. God set up a world with a given order to be a stable reality upheld by Him and gave us free will to choose Him. God wants us to choose to love Him out of our free will as He is able to love freelt. He needs nothing so He can love all, and that includes allowing us to reject Him even after doing all things possible up to the point of forcing us to be unable to reject Him. God does not force Himself upon us because that would not be love, that would be spiritual rape if He overrid our ability to choose for or against His Will or not or holding us hostage if He forced us to Heaven regardless of our will. But what He does enforce is that we must make the choice, whether by action or inaction. Either and our death or the Eschaton. We are in a liminal time of amnesty where we may repent and come to the King before He enforces His rule in power. Between the Ascension (or really the Incarnation) and the Eschaton is a transition period between the announcement of the King and His enforcement of His Divine Justice perfectly. Because, were God to simply enforce His Divine Justice without showing us Divine Mercy, all would fall short because God is perfect. But so that some may choose Him of their accord, God bridged that gap and paid the infinite fee if sin we owe by His own Most Precious Blood and infinitely valuable sacrifice. So God is doing alot, what He is not doing is kowtowing to our every demand or want. Were He to, He would not be God because He would be afixing His Divine Action to tge whims of a finite creature. Basically God does not have to meet our demand, He is God and though He loves us and is Merciful and gives us good things, heals us spiritually if we allow it and it is good for us on the way to eternity from this temporary place, and He forgives us and pays His own Divine Justice, He is in charge, not us. And this kind of prideful entitlement thinking God must do things our way, is exactly why He should not do things our way or allow us an eternity to do whatever we want, because we have made a disaster of what little we already have. We could do much to fix it, but we do not and continue to act out of selfish self-regard and against each other. We are not fit to rule, and for those able to see it, this is another path to finding God if they humbly look for Him. If we do not know how to love one another even to our limited understanding of that, why should we expect God Who is Perfect Love to act either as we do or as we think He should? I am glad God does not do as we exactly expect, because then He is not an intependent being but truly some collective entity born if our expectations, like the Chaos Gods from Warhammer 40K and then either there is anotger higher being, or reality is an infinite vicious circular logic loop and so is absurd.
1
@rationald6799 You are basically saying there is no explanation that will satisfy you as you are set in your own beliefs regardless of evidence. From my point of view it seems you are not looking for evidence or to be proven wrong, you are simply looking to confirm.your prior held beliefs for whatever your internal reasons are. If not, then instead of rejecting every proposed means of evidence presented to you out of hand, while throwing up vague demands for evidence with unfixed parameters of what that actually means because you give no concrete realistic set of standards or model given the world around us to actually validate or not. Give a systematic robust system of establishing the reality or falsity of God's existence based on the actual nature of the world and not an idealized one that does not exist and be humble enough to be open to it being critiqued.
1
@rationald6799 Because physical reality is composed of space-time and is discrete and the nature of physicality is not identical to that of being in itself which, is by its nature necessarily not divisible into parts. This is because it must be causally basal as a thing must be for any nature of any kind to be actual. And if being could be broken down into units, it is sitting atop a system and so a thing more basal.
1
@rationald6799 Wrong person sir. I spoke of the nature of physical reality. Not your patterns of belief.
1
Actually I think I remember speaking to you. It isn't so much amount of time for me, but too many first-hand accounts and cooraboration (sic) and further warrant from evidence after investigation into the question of the nature of reality and God as best I have been able to perform various times as my inquiry and analysis have increased over the years. I can not very well prove the experiences to a closed mind such as yours, so I won't waste either of our time trying that angle. Doubly if you would dismiss arguments before they are even presented to you but only proposed. If you want evidence, have and make explicit your standards in a systematic, falsifiable, parameter-controlled, and repeatable or at least analyzable fail and success conditions, preferrably with a null hypothesis and what would constitute as error conditions to be avoided. I say this because you seem to want empirical proof while being unable to or simply refusing to actually present any empirical set of conditions for acceptance or rejection to meet. Also because it implies you believe this system of rational inquiry is capable of potentially definitively giving evidence for or against the existence of God. So then you must believe a workable experiment, model,or empirical standard exists that can answer it. If you.are going to reject evidence based on some criteria, make them explicit and at least up to the standards you are demanding. If you are truly experienced on the matter you should be able to do so. And in fact if you will not accept other people's proposed criteria, you must provide yours for anyone else to know if their evidence would be valid to your call for evidence. If this all sounds like it is out of the blue. Please ignore it, it was then not you I am remembering.
1