A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

Faith & Science Conversation
470

Yes, I see what you mean, and think you are not conflicting with what I state but rather adding a complementary aspect:

To be in the Image of God is both a status and an aim to achieve.

As Genesis 5:1 states, “God made them (Mankind) in His likeness and created them male and female”. Thereby Humanity is the community of those bodily creatures blessed with the capability of freely loving God. Humanity and each human are called to unfold this capability to achieve becoming like God in His Son Jesus Christ. God becomes human flesh in Jesus Christ, in order each human and Humanity can become Jesus Christ’s flesh end thereby like God. In Heaven the whole Humanity will appear as embodied in Jesus Christ.

I am not stating that the Image of God reduces to an “observable anatomical feature” but rather the following:

At the time T when God creates the first humans in His likeness, He establishes which kind of body He wants for His Son to become incarnate, and thereby He establishes also which kind of body is thereafter the observable sign to ascertain which creatures have the status of Image Bearers. And this means that:

Image Bearers have to acknowledge as Image Bearers anybody belonging to Humanity.

471

In my view the coherent logical path is as follows:

Premise A:
Conservation of my personal identity and free will (foundation of Law).

Premise B:
Space-time is not continuous but quantified or “pixelated” (evidence from quantum physics).

Conclusion 1:
No material substrate can warrant the conservation of my personal Identity.

Premise C:
I am not aware of my existence during sleep:

Conclusion 2:
I am not capable of warranting my personal identity.

Conclusion 3:
There must be a non-material being that is uninterruptedly conscious and aware of his existence, i.e.: a personal being who can claim ‘I AM’ and warrants my personal identity.

Premise D:
The God of the Bible says his name is ‘I AM’ (in Hebrew YAHWEH).

Conclusion 4:
The God we are led by quantum physics to is the same God the Bible refers to.

Premise E:
Jesus Christ reveals us that YAHWEH consists in a relation of three Persons: Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Jesus-Christ Himself declares to be the Incarnated Son of God, that is the perfect Image of God.

Premise F:
Genesis 1:27, 5:1-2 tells us that “When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them.”

Conclusion 5:
Marriage as relation of persons is Image of God’s relational being.

This Conclusion 5 has been proposed both by Karl Barth and Pope John Paul II (see Section 7.2 of this article).

472

That logic is ok as far as faith/religion goes, but in philosophical discussions that would be considered an circular argument.

1 Like
473

A circular argument is one that cannot be disproven or falsified. When we say that nan allele survives because it is fit, and is fit because it survives, that is a circular argument.

What I was saying is that there is a strong relationship between the Premise and the Conclusion. Let’s say that the promise is, God is Good, and the conclusion is God does Good. That is falsifible because people can challenge the goodness of God’s Creation, as many do. On the other hand if my premise were God is good by nature and the conclusion were therefore God is good, that is a circular argument that cannot be falsified.

The Creator is Relational, therefore we must ask the question, Is the Cr4eation Relational? I find that that answer is yes, so the universe is not Being. Philosophy needs to ask this question.

God is always the Beginning and the End of Reality. It is what is in the middle, the universe, which is in question. If the Middle is not good as Dawkins and Dennett claim, then God does not exist If the Middle or universe is good, then God does exist.

474

I see no evidence that space-time is quantified. Space-time is not within the realm of quantum physics.

This is not my area of expertise so I am not sure about this, but I find that there are several areas where quantum physics has been misunderstood.

475

“If the creator is relational, we should expect X” is a premise which does not lead to an circular argument, but starting with “the Creator exists” or “the Creator is relational” and ending with “the Creator exists” would.

476

That reminds me of the best known philosophical state4ment. “I think, therefore I am.”

I think what is meant is To exist as a human being is to think, not that only those who think have existence.

I was trying to make a similar statement. To exist as the Creator, God must be Relational, because the Creation is relational.

Of course the traditional philosophical view is that God is not Relational, but God is Simple Being. In a real sense this is not a question as to whether God exists, but how God exists. How God exists is almost as important as whether God exists, since false information is not good.

477

Here some evidence, which may also be of interest to @Reggie_O_Donoghue and @BoltzmannBrain:

1
Space-time is the realm of visible things: to say something is within space-time means it is something we can access with our senses.

Space-time is defined by the ensemble of possible effects human experimenters can produce or observe. Experiments like Michelson-Morley tell us that we cannot produce effects at a distance (signal) faster-than-light.

If we try to explain the universe as a continuum we are led to singularities at the origin (Big Bang), and within black-holes, that is, points with infinite density. This is a physical absurdity.

Therefore we have to admit the quantization of space-time.

2
Nonlocal quantum correlations reveal that physical reality cannot be explained exclusively by material links, that is, information recorded and propagating continuously within in space-time: We have to admit influences acting from outside space-time.

A consistent unified description of the physical reality requires considering signals propagating NON-faster-than-light as emerging from outside space-time as well [for details see: arXiv:1510.01312].

And this means that space-time itself is emergent and quantified, i.e.: “pixalated”, like a laptop screen: You have the illusion your mouse-arrow moves continuously, but in fact it jumps from pixel to pixel.

3
The introduction of the space-time continuum (geometry and “real" numbers) in physics is a useful idealization, but it should not be considered a “material continuum structure” underpinning the physical world.

“As a mathematical tool the concept of a real number represented by a nonterminating decimal fraction is exceptionally important and fruitful. As the measure of a physical quantity it is nonsense.” [Max Born, Noble Price Lecture].

478

I am operating on the basis of Einstein’s Theory, E = mc squared, which banishes Absolutes from nature and by extension from the Creator of the universe. This would not hold up if our faith did not support this conclusion, but when John wrote, “God is Love,” 1 John 4:8, 16) and this is confirmed by Augustine’s Trinity, this conclusion is justified.

Thus I am basing my cosmology of Einstein’s Theory which has been confirmed and verified in many ways over the past 100 years of its existence, rather than quantum physics which has been in existence as long and is much more difficult to verify. Peop0le make the mistake of trying to universalize quantum physics, when it is not universal. It is limited to the quantum, subatomic world of every molecule.

Space and time are not quantum, they are purely relational as opposed to physical. They form the framework for the physical, rather than are physical per se. Space and time give nature the relational framework whereby the mind and reason which is also relational can construct an accurate scientific understanding of the universe.

479

I’m new to the discussion. What conclusion are you drawing from this?

480

Roger, it never ceases to amaze me that in truly accepting Teihard’s paradigm that the history of our Universe consists of three main epochs–the Cosmosphere, the Biosphere, and the most important and recent the Noosphere–it makes possible the seamless melding of the ideas you and @AntoineSuarez (and some others) have expressed on this thread.

[quote=“Relates, post:467, topic:35442”] [Antoine]
“we should not live by Darwinian principles […] one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.”

“You are right when you say that aspects of what Hitler tried to do could be regarded as arising out of Darwinian natural selection. That’s exactly why I said that I despise Darwinian natural selection as a motto for how we should live.”

We are agreed that we are not to live by “Darwinian natural selection,” even though Darwin claims “survival of the fittest” is responsible for who we are. However if survival of the fittest is evil and it is how can God use Darwinian natural selection to create humanity?
[/quote]

Roger, how hard would it be for you to accept my extension of Teilhard’s paradigm: The Noosphere (the sphere of evolving Ideas) began when the Homo sapiens brain was somehow ‘programmed’ to operate as Mind and thus marked the birth of potential human Spiritual Life and true Freedom of choice. Thus human brokenness is better described as rejecting the choice to Rise above Instinct rather than a Fall from a perfect state.

As I see it, Darwinian evolution that produced the first Homo sapiens did reward cooperation and symbiosis, as well as selfishness and acquisition of power. As a mixed bag, Darwinian evolution, as a means to an end, can be considered as Good, since it produced a primate potentially capable of loving its Creator. Early Homo sapiens was NOT US. Entry into the Noosphere, by means of a brain programmed to act as Mind, produced Adam, the first of humankind. If we are to fulfill our potential to become Image Bearers, we must rise above the instincts that successfully evolved our biological nature.

Why is it so difficult to replace Adam’s Fall (through disobedience) with Adam’s failure to Rise (because it involves sacrifice to love our neighbors)?
Al Leo

481

Something supernatural?

482

Nonlocal correlations coming from outside space-time are the most basic quantum-physical phenomenon. In this sense they underpin all natural phenomena.

The view that nature or physical reality reduces to contents within space-time is that of classical materialism, which has definitely been superseded by the quantum view: In the quantum perspective we have to assume that physical reality cannot be explained exclusively by information propagating within space-time.

Accordingly no natural phenomenon can be explained only by materialistic terms.

Natural visible phenomena can be ordinary or extraordinary:

Ordinary phenomena are those we can calculate and predict by means of mathematical equations as for instance the trajectory of the Sun in the Sky.

Extraordinary phenomena are those deviating from the usual patterns, as for instance the Resurrection of Lazarus, Pentecost, the Sun dancing in the Sky at 2pm on October 13, 1917 in Fatima (Portugal), etc.

The quantum perspective means that God ordinarily shapes the world according to mathematical equations so that we can live in and behave rationally. But there is no equation that can fit completely the content of Gods mind and predict extraordinary miraculous events.

Accordingly we can develop technologies to control ordinary events and use them to act more efficiently in the world. For instance your mobile will ring by the very fact they I correctly enter your number in my mobile.

As far as miracles are visible events can be considered extraordinary natural ones. But as far as we cannot control them by operational means can be considered supernatural events.

On the one hand there is no “law” forbidding nature to perform miracles. On the other hand we cannot use quantum physics to bring “miracle technologies” to the market (as many supporters of esoteric and paranormal phenomena pretend). The only way we have to “produce miracles” is prayer.

Proper supernatural effects refer to the realm of eternal life and the interplay between human freedom and God’s Grace to become in the Image of God. The paramount example is forgiveness of sins and growth in God’s love.

1 Like
483

Meaning nature has a cause from outside of nature.

484

Yes, provided

  • “nature” means the realm of things accessible to our senses

and

  • “cause” refers to an author with free will.
1 Like
485

Is this required, given you’re evidence? (if so then good)

486

Yes, it is required. We have extensive experimental evidence that:

  1. Nonlocal correlations cannot be explained by material causal chains within space-time: they originate from outside space-time.

  2. As far as one assumes the free will of the experimenter one has to assume free will behind the nonlocal effects.

From this it follows that nonlocality (which pervasively underpins nature) cannot be explained by causality but requires authorship.

2 Likes
487

Meaning God?

488

I’m still finishing to read your paper, but I just remembered reading about the idea that entangled particles could be connected by wormholes a while ago:

I don’t have the technical competency to understand the discussion in a deep level, but I was just curious to know. If that turned out to be true, would that eliminate the necessity of “something outside of space and time”?

489

Yes, for the following reasons:

By quantum physics we are led to these Results:

  1. If the experimenter has free will, then there is free will behind the quantum phenomena. The physical reality requires an author with free will. The world is speakable because it is spoken.

  2. Nature ordinarily is shaped according to mathematical equations so that we can calculate it, predict it, and behave conveniently. Nonetheless no equation can completely fit all possible phenomena. Extraordinary phenomena (miracles) can also occur: although highly improbable, they do not violate any law of nature.

  3. Under the condition of quantized or pixelated space-time, the conservation of my personal identity requires someone who is always aware of his own being, someone who can authentically claim: I AM.

Result 1
fits well with John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. […] Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”, and also philosophers like Plato.

Result 2
corresponds to the conception of God in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and philosophers in these major traditions, in particular Muslim philosophers.

Result 3
echoes God’s name YAHWEH in Judaism and Christianity, and also the conception of God by philosophers like Aristotle.