© 2011 Carmelo Martínez, L. Coll, Antonio Moya, Santiago Rodríguez, Eduardo Altuzarra
© 2011 Urantia Association of Spain
Participants:
- Carmelo Martínez
- L. Coll
- Antonio Moya
- Santiago Rodríguez
- Eduardo Altuzarra
¶ Antonio
Carmelo, when I ask these questions:
Do we have any proof that the universe had a beginning?
Do we have any proof that the universe is intentional?
I do it from the exclusively scientific and rational point of view, without taking into account at all the information from the UB. Come on, as if an honest atheist were asking himself.
Is there NOTHING, in all of Reality, that upon observing it tells us (or we realize) that the universe has necessarily had a beginning, or that, on the contrary, it has always existed? What if the universe, whether it is eternal or not, is intentional?
¶ Carmelo
Current science firmly believes that the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang theory, mostly accepted, is in that line), but as far as I know, it does not have reliable proof of it (possibly Santi can be more specific). Surely for me, proof will ever be found. Also the concept of entropy (the degree of disorder) indicates that the universe cannot be eternal. It can be assumed that the initial state of the universe was zero entropy (a maximum order); if the universe were eternal, disorder would be maximum and there would be no way to use the available energy. Come on, we would be a dead universe. There are indications then, but proof, as such, I don’t know them.
As for intentionality, I am more categorical; There is no proof and there never will be. Nothing tells us, or hints (from a scientific point of view), that the universe is the result of a purpose or has a preplanned goal.
¶ L. Coll
In my comment I do not intend to put all scientists on the ground. Scientists and science have their conflicts and battles to accept or not accept the existence of a divine Creator behind the complex and intricate affairs of this universe.
When we try to expose the existence of God in this modern and complex society, there are usually 3 currents or ways of approaching this issue of the existence of God, and the same thing happens with scientists.
1. Sincere Scientists
This group of scientists are sincere, they are intelligent people and behind all their theories and multiple suppositions and after racking their brains to discover the mysteries of the universe and life, they admit in the bottom of their hearts the existence of Someone, of a Planner and divine Creator and a First Cause behind everything. This group of scientists are destined to build a true science with wisdom.
2. Indifferent Scientists
This group of scientists do not consider the existence or non-existence of God. They simply dismiss anything that sounds like God or a Creator, and measure the universe and life from a material point of view. The “scientific” theories, assumptions, approaches and books multiply by thousands, almost never finding the final answer to all their multiple theories.
3. 100% atheist scientists
This group of scientists is almost always made up of a minority of minorities, thank goodness! This group of people and scientists are the typical people who would even let themselves be killed in their affirmation that GOD DOES NOT EXIST! Luckily that group of people is made up of a minority. In my opinion they are people who know that there is Something, Someone, a Creator, but they do not want to lose their ego and their pride, "Fear is the main enslaver of man, and pride, his greatest weakness (Doc.142 p. 1596) They do everything possible and more to show this world that indeed GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
These scientists are destined to build a false and atheistic science, without God and without wisdom.
About Stephen Hawking, one day he affirms the existence of a Creator and the next day he doubts or denies the existence of God at the origin of everything. I think the poor man is in a mess. "1. A display of specialized skill does not signify possession of spiritual capacity. Cleverness is not a substitute for true character.» (28 statements of human philosophy, UB 48:7.3)
I don’t know how old Stephen Hawking is, but he will soon realize the true reality of the universe.
¶ Carmelo
I’m sorry I don’t agree with what you say, Luis. To affirm that sincere scientists and those who have the possibility of building a science with wisdom are those who believe in God seems sectarian to me. There are sincere scientists capable of great scientific developments and they do not believe in God. The condition for being a good scientist is not exactly believing in God. Science and people when working on science have to ignore the fields of philosophy or religion, and therefore do not need to define themselves on the existence of Deity. Which does not mean that the same person, when not working on science, should be careless about the matter. The true scientists, in my opinion, are what Luis calls “indifferent scientists.”
First I would like to make a small preamble, to try to center some point. Science works with its own method, observes a fact, tries to explain it, and when it does, it issues a theory that can be tested, either the theory itself or all the conclusions derived from it.
I say this because it is common to come across shocking corollaries that end up being proven over time, and it also happens that some modification has to be made in order to arrive at other facts or observations.
So if we have to be honest (or rigorous) it is not worth saying that something that science says does not convince me. It may obfuscate, surprise, annoy, cheer, upset, etc., but when you observe a fact and give it an explanation, if it does not convince us, we have to provide another explanation and show that it is better than the proposal. If it is not like that, we can complain about what we want, it would be more, but it is not worth saying I am convinced or not, because it is something proven. And I repeat that it may be an erroneous conclusion on the part of the scientific community, but it is not a matter of conviction. Things and issues have to be demonstrated, it is what corresponds to the field of science.
Antonio, I don’t know if you’ve ever come across a piece of scientific knowledge called “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle”. You would be surprised to know that, with certain limitations, it tells us that we can get something from where there is nothing.
There will be fanatical people who defend the non-existence of God in a staunch way, but there are also honest people who have not found the Father in their search and who believe, in their sincerity with themselves, that God does not exist. They even envy those who do believe for the peace it brings them, but they cannot accept the idea simply out of fear or for inner peace. They are brave, they are honest and sincere, and yet they are atheists. Perhaps the god they have been taught is that toy god that some religions teach and have not discovered another, but they are sincere and brave and do not believe. It’s not out of pride or ego, it’s not because they don’t get off the donkey, they just don’t believe that there is anything in accordance with their conclusions, and not just lip service.
As I said yesterday, it is perfectly logical and coherent to think that behind the universe there is no creator; that it arose from nothing is as valid a hypothesis as that it was created. After all, if there is a beginning, a cause without a cause, why wouldn’t that be the universe itself? Why do we have to assume that there is also a creator who in turn was not created by anyone?
I believe in the Father, but there are people who do not, and we must not assume that they are less sincere or less honest than others, or that they persist without justification in a position that they know or suspect to be false; they just haven’t discovered the Father yet. We shouldn’t look down on them because we’ve been lucky enough to have discovered it.
¶ Santiago
I will try to answer correlatively. I would also like to clarify another statement of yours: “You cannot transmit what you do not have.” A woman does not have hemophilia, but she can transmit it. Normally what we have is what we can exhibit, because if we cannot manifest it in any way, to what extent do we have it?
Life originated spontaneously is a lost theme, we know that life is transmitted, it cannot appear, but science can always tell you that it has not yet reached the necessary knowledge to make it arise. He will always ask for an extension in that exam.
“Either the universe had a beginning, or the universe has always existed (it is eternal).” I’m afraid that science plays at being mistaken, and things are a tad more convoluted. In fact, the science that today is more orthodox tells you that both statements are true. That is, the Universe had a beginning and also has always existed (but it is not eternal).
The explanation given by science is that, during the Big Bang episode, both space and everything it contains (in its first moments in the form of energy, there was no matter) and time were self-created. Time is considered as a physical entity that appears on the scene with the Big Bang, so here is the point of view of why it is not eternal. It had a beginning, but it has always existed.
Since the “before” of something presupposes a pre-existence of the time line, there is no such thing, there cannot be a before. This, which does not have to be true, is consistent with the observed facts. And at the moment there do not seem to be facts that support the possibility of a past eternal universe.
From the paragraph you copied in the email “…a Universe without a border in space, without a beginning or end in time, and in which a creator has nothing to do”
It is precisely what the UB tells us:
Space is self-contained and there is no border, because leaving it implies transcending space/time, and that is the domain of the transcendentals.
Time and space have always existed, they are eternal past and eternal future. The Creator has nothing to do, it is true that the laws of nature already do all the work, the spatiotemporal framework of matter/energy works alone, it is automated, and science will not be able to deal with anything other than matter /energy, therefore he does not need God.
Can anything be observed that confirms that there is an intentionality in the Universe?
My answer is no". For a very simple reason: Science deals with facts, not with meanings and values.
Science postulates that mind arises from matter. For there to be intentionality there must be mind; if you do not postulate the existence of a mind prior to matter, you cannot seek or find an intention in the cosmos.
Otherwise, completely agree.
As far as the reason for the existence of the universe is concerned, it seems like an avoidable but understandable outcome given the nature of the Father. God is LOVE, and this only makes sense towards others, not towards himself, therefore it is inevitable that GOD generated others in order to share that LOVE. That is inevitable, what was avoidable and for this I am very grateful, is that part of those “others” was precisely us.
¶ Antonio
Carmelo said: It is not contrary to (scientific) logic or reason to hypothesize spontaneous creation, which is the same as saying that the universe does not have a cause, which is the cause without a cause. Scientifically it is not an aberration.
As I was saying yesterday, it is perfectly logical and coherent to think that behind the universe there is NOT a creator; that it arose from nothing is as valid a hypothesis as that it was created. After all, if there is a beginning, a cause without a cause, why wouldn’t that be the universe itself? Why do we have to suppose that there is also a creator who in turn was not created by anyone?
According to this, and some statements by Santi, it seems that it is NOT an aberration to think that the universe appears out of nowhere, that life arises from where there was no life, that intelligence manifests itself from where there was no intelligence. There are no previous causes, it is spontaneous creation.
This idea is repugnant to my intelligence, perhaps for only one reason, which I explain: In this world of ours we observe three realities: energy-matter, life, and intelligence, that is, rocks, trees and animals, and men. Of these three realities, the highest we know is intelligence. Intelligence thinks, invents, plans, models and creates. The energy-matter and the trees and animals (as far as I know) no.
It seems much more plausible to me that an Intelligence without a cause invents and creates the universe, than that the universe arises spontaneously (I don’t know where) and subsequently creates intelligence.
As the UB says: Science persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling. (UB 102:6.8)
Scientific materialism attributes what is admittedly higher back into that which is admittedly lower. (UB 102:6.9).
As it seems that this debate has ended in a table, allow me (to continue clicking) to try to approach it from another angle:
I tell the man in the street (NOT the UB readers):
Of two things, one: Either we are the product of chance (of an inanimate universe), or we are Someone’s project.
Man, by himself, cannot, is not capable of knowing the reason for his existence.
-
a) If we are the product of the Big Bang, that is, of chance, of an inanimate universe, “nobody” will ever come and tell us the reason for our existence. Simply because there is “no one,” and because there is no reason.
-
b) But if we are the project of “Someone”, if we are part of the plan of “Someone”, it is to be assumed that this “Someone” must have told us once, in some way, what is the reason for our existence, what it is what he expects of us, what is our origin and our destiny. In short, why are we here, and where do we go next?
Have we ever received this information?
Cold, objective analysis, as if we did not know the UB.
¶ Santiago
Antonio, I understand that we have received that information but not in an objectively unequivocal way.
All religions are based on that extra information that seems not to have a merely mechanical or observational origin from nature itself; and that we suppose that it has had a superior origin.
But obviously this is an assumption and a belief of those who believe, and an artifact of your own mind according to those who do not believe… and as Rafa said, it must be so if we are to be free.
¶ Eduardo
I want you to know that I am of the opinion, today, that being aware that I am finite, limited, subject to time and space, I cannot believe or understand that without Someone, without a plan, without some intentions, without some principles, without some origins, nothing that my senses perceive would be a reality, it could well be an illusion. With this I want to convey to you that I feel some frustrations when I do not understand very well certain things about reality. I only wish not to fall into the error of misinterpreting the concepts by which reality is manifested.
I believe that spontaneous creation does not conform to reality, that the universe, material creation has a reason, that everything obeys a pre-established plan and that there are many personalities that make it possible for all of this to be real. I am also aware that I do not understand the processes to follow very well, but I hope that one day in time or outside of it, somewhere in space or outside of it, I will come to understand God and all of his existence, because I will be wiser because of all the experiences lived until that day.
Before the UB fell into my hands, I already had the feeling that we were not in this world simply to eat “the silly soup”. That we were not alone, that “someone” else accompanied us on this journey. That there had to be a Chief to organize, manage and prosecute if the case arose.
One of the things that has been the most “uphill” for me in reading the UB has been the Prologue. Well, since the day I came to understand and interpret it, in my clear way, with my irreducible persistence and the help of all of you, I was able to better understand God and his plan.
Where is the problem between what science says and what religion says for all humans in this world? Well, in that they have not known how to “shake hands” through philosophy. Someday that time will come. When humans are wiser.
¶ L. Coll
I will try to explain myself a little better, I do not intend to put anyone on the ground. In our efforts to try to publicize some things, our opinions, and the teachings of the Book, we will always find ourselves in the delicate balance of not trying to impose and at the same time sharing our opinions and teachings of the Book. The Urantia Book does not force anything, it only invites, suggests, clarifies ideas and concepts, inspires and encourages people to seek God for themselves, to seek the truth and the answers that most people are looking for.
In these three points that I have shared with you, it is my opinion in a general way about the attitude, way of thinking and approaching the subject of God that people in society tend to have, both scientists and people in general.
I know perfectly well that you may have your opinions and disagreements on these three points. It is also a fact that sometimes ego and pride effectively prevent people from seeking God or deciding to believe and have faith in a Higher Being.
We all know that there are atheists or indifferent people who are magnificent people and are looking for the answers and the truth in their lives, and the same is Science and scientists. The honest scientist does not have to believe in God, he can do great good for society with his discoveries as long as he uses them for good.
Instead of giving you another sermon, I invite you to read these pages in the book on science, religion and secularism: “MATERIALISM - THE VULNERABILITY OF MATERIALISM” UB 195:6.1 to UB 195:7.23. I think these 3 points that I have shared with you clarify a lot.
These two passages particularly stand out to me:
“Paradise values of eternity and infinity, of truth, beauty, and goodness, are concealed within the facts of the phenomena of the universes of time and space. But it requires the eye of faith in a spirit-born mortal to detect and discern these spiritual values.” (UB 195:7.4)
Religion is simply indifferent to, but sympathetic with, science, while it supremely concerns itself with the scientist. (UB 195:6.2)
“Twentieth-century secularism tends to affirm that man does not need God. But beware! this godless philosophy of human society will lead only to unrest, animosity, unhappiness, war, and world-wide disaster.” UB 195:8.5 “The great mistake of secularism was this: In revolting against the almost total control of life by religious authority, and after attaining the liberation from such ecclesiastical tyranny, the secularists went on to institute a revolt against God himself, sometimes tacitly and sometimes openly. It is not necessary to sacrifice faith in God to enjoy the blessings of modern secular uprising. . .” (UB 195:8.6)
¶ Carmelo
In the end I will not be so in disagreement with Luis.
I am copying several paragraphs from paper 195, which are relevant and can clarify some ideas for us.
Religion is the revelation to man of his divine and eternal destiny. Religion is a purely personal and spiritual experience and must forever be distinguished from man’s other high forms of thought, such as:
1. Man’s logical attitude toward the things of material reality.
2. Man’s aesthetic appreciation of beauty contrasted with ugliness.
3. Man’s ethical recognition of social obligations and political duty.
4. Even man’s sense of human morality is not, in and of itself, religious. (UB 195:5.3-7)
UB 195:6.1 in the materialism section:
Scientists have unintentionally precipitated mankind into a materialistic panic; they have started an unthinking run on the moral bank of the ages, but this bank of human experience has vast spiritual resources; it can stand the demands being made upon it. Only unthinking men become panicky about the spiritual assets of the human race. When the materialistic-secular panic is over, the religion of Jesus will not be found bankrupt. The spiritual bank of the kingdom of heaven will be paying out faith, hope, and moral security to all who draw upon it “in His name.”. UB 195:6.1
No matter what the apparent conflict between materialism and the teachings of Jesus may be, you can rest assured that, in the ages to come, the teachings of the Master will fully triumph. In reality, true religion cannot become involved in any controversy with science; it is in no way concerned with material things. Religion is simply indifferent to, but sympathetic with, science, while it supremely concerns itself with the scientist. (UB 195:6.2)
And an optimistic touch at the bottom of that page:
“At the time of this writing the worst of the materialistic age is over; the day of a better understanding is already beginning to dawn. The higher minds of the scientific world are no longer wholly materialistic in their philosophy, but the rank and file of the people still lean in that direction as a result of former teachings. But this age of physical realism is only a passing episode in man’s life on earth. Modern science has left true religion—the teachings of Jesus as translated in the lives of his believers—untouched. All science has done is to destroy the childlike illusions of the misinterpretations of life.” (UB 195:6.4)
And you can continue reading because what follows is not wasted either. For example, this hard-hitting paragraph at the bottom of page 2077:
“To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness.” (UB 195:6.11)
¶ References
- Light and Life Magazine (all old issues): https://aue.urantia-association.org/numeros-antiguos-del-lyv/