Ultra pragmatism and scientism has left man with the illusion of an anthropocentric universe which no longer has need or use of a Creator God. But for all the science that builds one atop another, from the smallest sub-atomic universe to the galaxies of immense proportions throughout the vast universe, we no longer see the pervasive mysteries that are cooked into our natural observations and our mathematical and scientific theories – no matter how perfectly they can predict or read the history of being itself. For every finding that is discovered and proved, the age old question of the child is still there: “why?”. For there are things that mathematics and science and logic will never unravel and the “why, how, for what purpose and to what end” questions are only covered over by a thin veil of evermore complicated explanations. It seems we keep peeling back layers of an onion only to find that we still don’t know why there is an onion.
The scientists and the pragmatics amongst us still cannot explain the mystery of a universe (who) creates intelligence which in turn tries to explain itself; which leads us to accept some kind of mechanism at work; an introspective conglomeration of vibrating subatomic and atomic particles with self-consciousness. We take for granted that this (living) universe can be comprehended by a naturally formed bit of the universe – ourselves. The universe somehow has a desire to know itself and it is us (small little sub atomic beings of the cosmos), who are both alive and conscious of this universe that has been bequeathed this task. How utterly wonderful, awe inspiring and mysterious and we are urged to think of it with no more interest than we might have in what we should eat for dinner.
Imagine first why there is anything at all. If I were to be able to hypothetically ask a dead man, according to the beliefs of atheists, if there is anything at all to existence he would have to say from his perspective that it is only an illusion: for he sees, feels, senses or remembers nothing. So to the dead, we are in error and there is no being. And to the living, the dead would be in error as we merely need rely upon our existing living senses.
Secondly, we can imagine then that every bit of energy in the universe has some primal or latent life residing within itself (mysteriously) such that it has its own primal desire for knowing and acknowledging itself. For how do these atoms arrange themselves in man to allow logic or a sense of being? And if that is our belief then we have become committed pantheists. How too, is it that this logical existence (man) has come into being only to grow, then whither and die? What happened to the stability of the atoms from which this life force is created, ebbs then wanes, and then returns to the state of simple atoms once again? What is the purpose then for man to come into being, thinking of itself as alive and logically examining such questions, only to die; like little unexplainable conscious beings of life bubbling to the surface to only burst. So life is mysterious as well. It is a wonder that there are collections of cells, atoms and sub atomic particles that come and go, without any purpose or meaning: no rhyme or reason, and yet we wish to admonish wonder, awe and mystery that permeate creation but is the substance of our faith in God.
Thirdly, why is it that we have a sense of “I-ness” or “ego” and a sense of “thou-ness” or other; the seer and and the seen. Where is the entire cosmological intelligence that is always aware of itself even if we are simply like dying cells being replaced by newer ones? For there is no reason that an atom should become unstable within our bodies in our short, normal lifetimes. Those same atoms existed before I was born and exist after death and yet in this intermediate step between non-existent man and decomposed man there is life and a social, moral and ethical order and construct that binds us together just as sure as the cells of a body bind themselves one to another in order to create a single living human being.
Isn’t it harder to imagine such a universe than to un-imagine it? And that, I think, is what is ultimately the end result when we place all our belief in science; nihilism or nothingness. “Life could be a dream” seems to fit the narrative. For it is meaningless, has no beginning and no end and only exists in those who accept their own consciousness as being real . . . though they will return to whence they came which is non-consciousness or non-being; utter emptiness and nothingness.
So is life better lived with our instinct to have faith in our perceived dignity and worth? To embrace hope for the future of ourselves and all of mankind? And to find the dignity, both morally and ethically to embrace true charity (self-giving love or sacrificial love)? For to give ones life for another in the world of “you only live once” crowd, such sacrifices seem totally out of place.
We are to believe that life with meaning is simply ignorance and so we strip away all the wonder, awe and mystery of life which a loving Creator God provides. A God Who desires man to live well so that we might live together with Him in happiness eternally or to live in an existential world that is ultimately valueless is one’s primary choice in life. And remember that the same process that developed science, logic and all other pragmatic studies were intuited by mankind in the very same way that the other subjects developed. They are naturally occurring in our species. So, is religion any more part of our internal makeup than this new “religion” which denies even itself?
All Along the Watchtower 
I like Why questions.
Given the Creator didn’t need to create, why did the aseitic Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago? For what purpose was the world intended? What function does it serve? Why evolution? What possible rational reason could the Creator have had to invent—literally invent—that slow, messy, painful, error-rich process?
LikeLike
Well then you need to keep on asking questions John. Christianity has some very good reasons but all you’ve added is more smoke to cover up the mystery and awe of it all. I feel a sense of sadness when these things, quite natural to men from the beginning as they tried to make sense of their being, are no longer contemplated or given at least as much credence as science.
LikeLike
I asked some Why questions. Like you, I think they’re critical.
Do you not have any answers?
LikeLike
An uncreated Creator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that’s what you believe in, an aseitic Creator, which is fine, but those three words do not even begin to address the two ‘why’ questions asked. I’m hoping to get to the ontological grounding of your worldview, which, naturally, would give coherency to the ‘awe’ you speak of in the post.
So, given the Creator didn’t need to create, WHY did the aseitic Creator deliberately create this quarantined, evolving, artificial world 13.8 billion years ago? For what purpose was this artificial world intended? What function does it serve?
And why evolution? What possible rational reason could the Creator have had to invent—literally invent—that slow, messy, painful, error-rich process?
I look forward to your answers
LikeLike
Whenever God created is insignificant as before the event there is no time. Time requires substance and movement. Remove either of them and Creation vanishes.
Ontologically, God is the Love Supreme that wishes that there might be an “other” to experience the joy and love His very being. It is total self-giving. It is why a man and woman in marriage and complete self-giving are co-creators with God Almighty in bringing life into this world; that they too might share in the love and happiness the married couple have been given. It is a holy moment if done in the sense of God’s self-giving. We are but a veiled shadow of that same love which regenerates more happiness and more love through their new existence.
As to evolution (if one believes it all or if one only believes evolution within a particular species): the interesting bit, which is lost on most secularists is natural law, especially as it relates to reproduction. The alimentary canal (mouth to rear end) has an end and reason for existing . . . it is for survival via nutrition. Developing two bodies, one male genitalia and female genitalia, are simply the natural development to provide the survival of the species. If one is trying to make of them one and the same for sexual pleasure then you have violated the natural law and natural reason for their existence. It is a perversion of both the divine and of the natural development of the body.
Lastly, life serves the function of love: the sharing and spreading of love and happiness; the inclusion into a family for no personal gain but because it is good in itself.
N.B. And remember too that 13.8 billion years only exists in the mind of the created. The Uncreated God is above and beyond time. It is always before His face.
LikeLike
Thanks, but regarding evolution you haven’t actually answered anything. I asked WHY evolution? What possible rational reason could the Creator have had to invent—literally invent—that slow, messy, painful, error-rich process?
And it is “error-rich”: Evolution is not adaptively directed, not goal-orientated. Mutations are random, while selection is dictated by environment. And 80% of all mutations are believed to be harmful to an organism’s fitness.
So, WHY evolution?
If you can’t explain “why evolution” then you’re not in possession of an ontologically coherent explanatory model, rather a pantomime.
As to Why the Creator created, your answer is incoherent on a number of levels, not least of all when one tries to mesh it with the actual world; the world that is, has been, and will be. What I mean here is, principally, that it doesn’t fit the corporeality of 13.8 billion years of evolutionary history. This is why the WHY evolution? question above is just so critical.
Your answer could make sense if the Creator created this artificial world as a free-roaming experiment and is fascinated by whatever unfolds. In this, humans were not intended, rather an accident of unguided evolutionary pressures, and are certainly not the final/desired product (as we’re still evolving). I don’t think, however, this is a position you would feel comfortable championing. Correct me, though, if I’m wrong.
Now, your statement It is total self-giving sounds lovely, but it presents some real problems by way of coherency. Here I’m expressly talking about aseity, and if I read you correctly, you’re circling Aquinas’ bonum diffusivum sui (goodness spilled out), or what others have called “self-diffusive love.” Is that correct?
Diffusion (Def.) is the movement of a single material from a region of high concentration to a region of low concentration.
So, if we’re to accept the general Christian theological stance on the nature of the god named Yhwh (aseitic, maximally good, etc.) then we know Aquinas’ answer (together with self-diffusive love/total self-giving, being different ways of saying the same thing) is wrong. An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity. An aseitic being cannot “spill out,” and even if it could somehow increase its size (its being) then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being, indistinguishable, and that is inconsistent with our world which is material, finite, and evolving.
What that means, of course, is that ours in an artificial world; a synthetic construct that was deliberately created some 13.8 billion years ago, entirely separate from the Creator. A “constructed” world is a false world. It is an unnatural contrivance; a petri dish quarantined from the actual world (all that which is the aseitic Creator), and we know this because this world is sealed between the three things an aseitic being could never directly experience, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.
So, as you can see, you haven’t actually answered Why this synthetic world exists—in the manner that it exists—in the first place.
That is what you need to explain, to answer.
LikeLike
I will answer in a new thread.
LikeLike
And just to note: how old this artificial world is is highly significant to the (allegedly) contingent (evolving) beings existing within this (allegedly) artificial world. Coherency demands a clear knowledge of time elapsed, because that time HAS TO BE explained. Again, if you can’t explain that time in a manner that is coherent to your worldview, then you are not in possession of an explanatory model, rather a pantomime.
LikeLike
Superb post, Scoop. In many ways, we have evolved until we are pre-Gallileo, once again putting ourselves at the center of the universe. And also missing the majestic wonders of the whole thing to look at an unimportant detail/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yikes, that word should have been devolved!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed this is how I see it as well, NEO. One can go into all the details one wants but we are still in the midst of a true mystery which is God and His unfathomable love and desire to share His happiness with His creation. How do we respond? With silence, reverence, wonder and awe would seem appropriate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Does to me, as well.
LikeLike
I shall attempt to answer the WHY of evolution , , , which has to do with what flavor of evolution you adhere to.
I gave you en example of the highest evolutionary form that we have direct knowledge of; the human being. It is a shadow that points toward the nature of God Himself. That man was made to strive after what God has in full abundance: Divine Goodness, Love, Self-giving etc. and all other Divine attributes. We can only approximate these attributes but God has shown us a synchronistic bond between Himself and His Creation. It evolves, becomes self aware, recognizes good and evil, possesses free-will and can live up to the task to imitate the creator and abide by the natural law which is but evidential that we are made for something more than a fleeting, meaningless existence. In this way, like faith, man had to mature; from simply recognizing the I – Thou consciousness that we are innately endowed with to the belief in a God of the sun or the moon or the rain etc. God then reveals Himself as I AM or I AM WHAT I AM and gives us a written law that corresponds quite well with the natural law in our hearts. Later, when philosophy began to reign and the perceived need of man to find a purpose for his life by searching the mystery of life, many questions were studied and argued, much like today. Christ then appears and reveals to us all that we need ever know . . . how to understand the written laws, how to live and how to pray. For God is revealed at that time as Father, Son and Holy Ghost; three Divine Persons with one Divine nature. So three answers to Who God is and 1 answer as to what God is. God is the One God, the what. Who He is a mystery that nobody can explain anymore that you can tell me what the inside of black hole looks like. It is veiled in mystery. But we are told that Who He is, is a family; Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Creator, Redeemer and Self-giving Divine Love. We are invited to participate and become adopted members of this Divine Family and thereby share in His Joy and Happiness which is complete. Faith in the One God, especially the Creator is the first step into the mystery. The second step is Hope in the promises of Christ. And thirdly the Charity to imitate the Holy Spirit. And dispersion is a foolish thought when it comes to love. As if a father and mother run out of love because they had too many children and love each of them less than they did before they had their last child. In fact, the more we give our love away the more love springs up inside of us. Our own experience tells us as much.
So do I believe? Yes as much as I believe that there is something within a black hole. Though what it looks inside and why it can even happen remains a mystery. God is like that to some extent. He draws everyone to Himself and we can either steer clear of enter into that mystery . . . which is far more optimistic that the outcome of jumping into a black hole which is where the nihilistic, anthropomorphism would seem to rather take their chances. It is ultimately your choice, my friend as it is a free choice given to all men. It really boils down to a pessimism that I would not never embrace or living with Faith, Hope and Charity which seems a rather positivist and optimistic outlook on life. So not only do I look forward to eternal happiness with God but I also find that my life in this world is far more meaningful and joyful that it would be otherwise.
And I will ignore the rest of the evolution talk which go for paragraph to paragraph and only say that it is one more “fingerprint” that there is a hidden connectivity between us and our Creator and in our desire to move toward perfection. Although the only form of evolution that I have seen is environmental changes to a species to survive a new threat to its being: as the fossil record shows no evidence of in-between species and the old chicken or the egg cannot be reconciled with what we know.
I see you returned to your arbitrary 13.8 billion year date as if that binds God as to ‘when” which makes no sense. For before creation there is no time. And the time that you give it is according to the speed of the earth around the sun . . . it all is contingent on where you view things from and how one measure time. That evolution happened nearly at once is quite possible as there was no time per se until there was a conscious being in the created universe to apply its measure to the event. It takes no time until time is intuited by intelligence.
God has no need for free-roaming experiments and is fascinated by nothing. He is impassible. It is simple His love that cannot help but share its joy. God made man for Himself and not for His Happiness and Joy but for ours. I know its hard to believe being a human being where everything is dependent upon us for our motivations for doing anything.
Aseity began with Plato and Aquinas and Thomas put their marks upon it as well. I have stated it as simply as is my understanding. After all, God is Mystery. His Persons and His Nature is not ours; though in some way we have His image and likeness built into our being. But we are invited to share in His Mystery and in the Beatific Vision and His Happiness that is offered at little cost. I for one don’t think such a gift is one I would consciously refuse.
It’s not a synthetic world, my friend but it is does show enough of the syncretism with the God of Heaven and earth for us to intuit much of why we should not waste our times trying to find out what color His eyes are but more time giving thanks for creation, life and an opportunity to share forever in His life. If you want to explore whether photons have consciousness or not is none of my business or if a rock has a sense of I-ness. The mystery of God’s Creation and of man is not going to be fully understood. We are led to believe that God’s presence, an eternal moment with God, will never bore us or be fully penetrated. Now that is a Mystery beyond all mysteries. The universe is simply another material projection of God’s unfathomable Being. We discovered mathematics which peeled off some layers and we should have been established with every discovery that intelligence is built into His design. But if you wish to remain in this meaningless world contemplating the next permutation of evolution or await a new breakthrough to hurl at believers, there is nothing to stop you. As I say you can peel as many onions skins back that you can but you cannot understand what made the onion.
LikeLike
There is no ‘flavour’ of evolution. There’s just evolution. It’s a fact, and in case you haven’t realised, every organism, at every time (including you and me), is a transitional form. And as I noted, how old this artificial world is is highly significant as coherency demands a clear knowledge of time elapsed, because that time (13.8 billion years) HAS TO BE explained.
So far, you have not even begun to explain it.
Now, thanks for your reply, but you still have not addressed the Why.
You listed some of the supposedly favourable products *of* evolutionary pressures, but retroactively scoring evolution according to your own human biases (who’s to say Denisovans or Neanderthals weren’t kinder, more intelligent, more caring?) does not address WHY evolutionary pressures exist in the first place.
That is what I’m asking: Why? Why invent evolution?
Did it *need* to be invented?
More poignantly, as per your worldview, did it need to be invented when we consider that this painfully slow, horrendously brutal, error-rich, disease-birthing process effectively hides the Creator (who you claim wants to have a relationship) behind a wall of impenetrable naturalism? (80% of all mutations being harmful to an organism’s fitness does not speak to competent guidance, does it?)
As you can see, there are some stunning inconsistencies here, and if you can’t reconcile these inconsistencies then your worldview will remain hopelessly incoherent; a pantomime with no explanatory power at all.
And you didn’t address the first question: Why did the aseitic Creator create this quarantined artificial world in the first place? Any particular reason why you are ignoring this?
As explained, your proposed answer (which I admit you didn’t seem at all comfortable with) is inconsistent with both aseity and the corporeality of this world. Aseity is basic Christian theology, but do tell me if you reject this quality. You’re certainly free to do so.
So, if you accept aseity, then the question remains: Why does this artificial world exist—in the manner that it exists—in the first place?
LikeLike
Let me just reply as that “waste of time” Akanaten would. Where is the evidence for the anything you believe about evolution (outside of modifications of an individual species to the environment). Please explain how random groups transform and others remain unchanged. What guides that process?
The laws that are written throughout the Universe is what drives it all; mathematics, evolution, science all have laws. God is obviously a God of laws and of order. Although the earth is but a shadow of what it could be since God allows evil to test our freewill and our love as well as other virtues. How else could we even gain these necessary graces and know that we have them to any degree or need to work more on this one or that one?
Mutations that fail simply rid the gene pool of what is not survivable. That creates order from chaos. That is not what is mysterious. I’d rather you look into the idea of consciousness and some of the other things that are totally mysterious and hidden from knowledge and probably always will be until the Parousia. But then it will be too late as one will not possess faith they will possess a logical proven fact. There is no merit in accepting a fact without utilizing faith, hope and charity. They are necessary components to explore the Mystery of all mysteries. But do try to tell me how atoms and bits of energy somehow randomly mutate into a creature that investigates itself and the makeup of all creation. And what is our interest if it is not based on either seeking what or who we came from ultimately? Most want to disprove God but they only find laws which change depending on what you are looking at. But there are laws which make this Cosmos work. Who is the Lawgiver or are mathematical laws simply a natural occurrence that formed from thin air to a a conscious human being who is made of star dust himself. You don’t believe in a spirit soul and so this is fair question. What scientist has explained this conundrum?
This seems to me a circular argument that simply shows that you prefer to negate the obvious . . . which men have recognized from prehistoric days . . . and I have no problem accepting a creator of not only the cosmos but the intellect to know it and to recognize good and evil and then exercise my free will in response to it. we are 180 degrees opposed and I fear there is no middle ground.
We have chosen our response to this mystery and from my view it is the most important decision in a man’s life. All I can say is this one of those topics where you best choose well, my friend.
I really have nothing else to say as I think this is going nowhere. I can only say the same thing in different ways so many times and the same applies to you. So let us mutually finish this thread since it is senseless.
LikeLike
OK, so your description of reality cannot actually account for reality.
You cannot explain Why this world exists, in the manner that it exists. If you’re happy with this incoherent ontology, then fine. Good for you.
But if you ever do think of a logically coherent reason for why a maximally good spiritual being (who apparently wants to have a relationship) would create a quarantined, artificial, material world and then invent something as slow and as brutal and as error-rich as evolution to drive that world (effectively hiding said Creator behind a wall of impenetrable naturalism) then do be sure to let me know. I’d like to hear it.
Take care.
LikeLike