Why is God Hidden?

[Bro Dave]

Let’s, just for the sake of this conversation, accept that God exists, and has “always” existed(although that word has no meaning outside of a time/space reference) Let us also consider that if God were to create a time/space universe for the purpose of creating beings with the potential of achieving a relative perfection, He would by necessity, need to remain hidden. This is because imperfect beings, scurrying around gaining experience, are doing so only because of some relative level of discomfort. If God were to be right there, provably present and directly contactable, the entire focus of survival would be for God to create a welfare state where they are taken care of with no effort on their part, and therefore, no chance of further growth. This would be entirely counter to His reason for their creation! However, God would have to be available in some way, to share in those experiences, and to guide his Kids. So, God, being spirit, gives his Kids that attribute as well, in the form of a soul. And so the partnership begins; God and humankind, experiencing this material realm. The human making judgment calls, and he/she and God experiencing the results. Good calls, make life a little easier. Bad calls, lead to more difficult, but even richer experiences, all of which eventuates in wisdom and therefore growth of the human soul.

Bro Dave

[Curious]

Quoted from Truthbook.com
An Introduction to The Urantia Book
for Conservative Christians


Just sharing

Blessings

Angelic_Spirit

Hello angelic_spirit, I see you are quite new to the forum so would encourage you to read the forum rules. Quoting passages is acceptable only if you then make a valid point concerning them. This is after all a debating and discussion site and the above post does not appear to discuss or debate anything.

[angelic_spirit]

Forgive me.

Sometimes for me the Urantia Book explains it so well, there's nothing left for me to add.



I'll make sure not to repeat the same mistake again.

Anyways, i deleated it, obviously the only thing someone will see of it is that it breaks the rules of the forum.

Peace

Angel

[Bro Dave]

There is only one guide to the process -- and that is survival.
Suggesting at least a consciousness of self, and therefore a desire to survive

And in this quest, Nature is in no hurry whatsoever.
Again, for "Nature" to "be in no hurry", there must be a consciousness of time.

It has been working on this for billions of years.
So, "Nature" IS plotting and planning... Hmmm could it be that "Nature" is actually an expression of what some have called "God"?

You make my point entirely. The human compulsion to anthromorphize everything is utterly unfounded: Natural selection expresses no more desire for survival than the Earth desires to keep on spinning. Only someone attempting to rationalize a belief in a personified god would attempt to offer this interpretation.

Your insistence on characterizing universe intelligence,(which you obviously see in abundance) as some self invented A.I., is hardly more satisfying than a purposeful Creator. While you certainly may claim some “distributed” non-personal A.I. has seen fit to create all this life and beauty, I find it an amusing stretch. Why all the gymnastics, just to avoid acknowledging any possibility of a friendly, personal Creator?

Even if there was the tiniest grain of truth in it, the god it would reveal would not be the one that people are used to.

Here we are indeed in total agreement!

It's a worthless concept as far as I'm concerned. It would mean that every time another Pentium 4 processor (Da da de dum) is fired-up inside a PC god would heave another great sigh as he went about chasing the electrons through yet another 178 million transistors. An awful lot of stuff goes on in the universe. I think it's either totally autonomous or totally directed. If it was only partially directed there wouldn't be the consistency we see in the physical laws and all gods omin-characteristics would be trashed.

Well, I see no reason that a Creator who was capable of creating a material Universe, would be incapable of creating mechanism to make it run with out His having to “spin the crank” continuously. This is in fact, my understanding; God brought the Universe into existence, but uses a number of celestial beings for the process, and employs an enormous number to administer and evolve it towards perfection.

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

The problem with your assumption is that God did not design the physical universe to start out in a perfect condition. Perfection is its ultimate goal. Evolution is used as the primary tool to accomplish this. Directed evolution; What a wonderful way to run a universe!

Bro Dave

The problem with this, as I see it, is that the physical universe must then be imperfectly designed, not just that it is imperfect in it's initial state.

On the contrary, what a magnificent design that can accommodate a level of imperfection, and still function, as it awaits being perfected!

It might be argued that the main driving force behind evolution is the changing environment so how is it that this changing environment should bring about a corruption or stasis in the genome?

The process of evolution is a tool, and is itself not perfect. Corrections are constantly being made to compensate for this.

What might be seen as a deleterious mutation in the desert might be beneficial in the rain forest. Which part has been poorly designed, the environment, the occupants , or the interface? Which part is so flawed as to require constant patching? That, in my book, shows poor design.

“Poorly” is itself a “poor” choice of words. As stated earlier, the design is amazing, in that it accommodates such a wide diversity. Think of it like one of our satellite launches. Once launched, the satellite is on a coarse trajectory that needs many midcourse corrections. The same is true of evolutions. The goal of what is to eventually evolve is set at the start, but the exact details unfold as the process continues. God could have made any or all of it perfect from the start, but that was not a part of His plan. What you characterize as a flaw,(going from imperfection to perfection), is actually the product of the design!

Bro Dave

[QED]

Your insistence on characterizing universe intelligence,(which you obviously see in abundance) as some self invented A.I., is hardly more satisfying than a purposeful Creator. While you certainly may claim some “distributed” non-personal A.I. has seen fit to create all this life and beauty, I find it an amusing stretch. Why all the gymnastics, just to avoid acknowledging any possibility of a friendly, personal Creator?

Well you might find it an amusing stretch but in your own words we're pitching a "self-invented, distributed, non-personal A.I." up against a "friendly, personal Creator who went about filling a universe full of life and beauty". Now when I look around me and see life invariably followed by death, growth by decay and creation by destruction I (and the rest of science) can see one big system running down from a point of maximum order (Vast amounts of light gasses acting under gravity shortly after the Big Bang) through ever increasing levels of chaos towards eventual heat-death.

Along the way, the single 'trick' of evolution allows a tiny amount stuff in the universe to buck the trend, and for very limited period only, create itself a niche where the hands of time are turned back in a local sense to a point where chaos wasn't so high. Of course this results in increased chaos in its immediate surroundings to compensate. So it's no wonder at all why for me why we see the pattern of life and death etc. The rules were layed down in the Big Bang. This means, I'm afraid, that there can be no enduring life or beauty -- the system is (and always has been) weighted in the opposite direction.

So the only one doing gymnastics here is the one who insists that it was all layed down deliberately by a person looking to produce life and beauty. The evidence for this being the necessary invention of heaven to ameliorate the obvious collection of dead things that are to be found everywhere around.

Well, I see no reason that a Creator who was capable of creating a material Universe, would be incapable of creating mechanism to make it run with out His having to “spin the crank” continuously. This is in fact, my understanding; God brought the Universe into existence, but uses a number of celestial beings for the process, and employs an enormous number to administer and evolve it towards perfection.

I don't want to come across as a nihilist, but this simply can't be case. Given the relentless path towards chaos, perfection cannot be attained unless the concept of perfection is total annihilation, in which case we would have (once more) to conclude that if indeed there was a god, he'd actually be 100% malevolent but only 80% effective (or some such figure).

[Curious]

Now when I look around me and see life invariably followed by death, growth by decay and creation by destruction I (and the rest of science) can see one big system running down from a point of maximum order (Vast amounts of light gasses acting under gravity shortly after the Big Bang) through ever increasing levels of chaos towards eventual heat-death.

Heat death is itself an impossibility through simple entropy unless there is a reorganisation of the energy that is heat into another non-heat energy form. If you mean that the universe would become (overall) colder and colder due to it's endless expansion then this itself would never make the universe become 0 Kelvin at all points unless this heat energy, as I said before, became another type of energy, which would show a level of organisation in itself.

Along the way, the single 'trick' of evolution allows a tiny amount stuff in the universe to buck the trend, and for very limited period only, create itself a niche where the hands of time are turned back in a local sense to a point where chaos wasn't so high. Of course this results in increased chaos in its immediate surroundings to compensate. So it's no wonder at all why for me why we see the pattern of life and death etc. The rules were layed down in the Big Bang. This means, I'm afraid, that there can be no enduring life or beauty -- the system is (and always has been) weighted in the opposite direction.

It is not just evolution that bucks the trend here though is it? The formation of more complex molecules seems to be at odds with this inevitable crawl towards total decay. Molecules (and, for that matter elements ) are evidence that there is a heck of a lot of order around. Molecules do break down but the elements that they contain can just as readily reform to make other more simple or more complex structures.
Apart from the obvious order in the universe, which is self evident, the belief that the universe will eventually expand to ultimately end as a cold and barren place is dependent upon the mass of the universe being less than a particular value, the speed of expansion and the distances involved. These values and the ultimate outcome dependent upon these values has not been sufficiently understood or calculated to arrive at the conclusion of such inevitability.
I find it strange that you suggest that to compensate for local order, there would be an increase in local chaos. Are you suggesting here that chaos is not itself chaotic but has a behaviour geared towards maintaining the status quo? This would not indicate chaos but would show a level of dependence which points to an underlying order.
If eventually the universe was to expand indefinitely and there was a final homogeneous state where all "elements" arrive at a point of being infinitely far from all other "elements" with no hope of interaction, is that not the ultimate order? How is this less of an order than a homogenous cloud of super dense fizz-bangs all interacting in an apparently chaotic manner or how does this fizz-bang state show greater order than the complex universal structures we see at present.

I don't want to come across as a nihilist, but this simply can't be case. Given the relentless path towards chaos, perfection cannot be attained unless the concept of perfection is total annihilation, in which case we would have (once more) to conclude that if indeed there was a god, he'd actually be 100% malevolent but only 80% effective (or some such figure).

If we are to assume the final end state to be as you suggest or that the seemingly endless crawl towards chaos is in fact true. The simple truth is though that it is not decay that is most apparent in the universe but change. Given the vastness of the universe it seems that the possibility that life will continue to thrive and continue to evolve (at least in some places) is a pretty good bet.

[Curious]

“Poorly” is itself a “poor” choice of words. As stated earlier, the design is amazing, in that it accommodates such a wide diversity. Think of it like one of our satellite launches. Once launched, the satellite is on a coarse trajectory that needs many midcourse corrections. The same is true of evolutions. The goal of what is to eventually evolve is set at the start, but the exact details unfold as the process continues. God could have made any or all of it perfect from the start, but that was not a part of His plan. What you characterize as a flaw,(going from imperfection to perfection), is actually the product of the design!

But as I said earlier, this perfection you speak of would either be perfection in the desert or perfection in the rain forest but not both. If perfection is attained on earth then how could one adapt to a change in environment? Perhaps we might in the future colonise other planets that are earth like. This perfection attained on earth would not help us survive the new challenges in our new environment. These evolutionary contaminations, as you put it, are the reason for our evolution. A mutation of a gene might be only deleterious in one environment but beneficial in another such as sickle cell trait in respect to malarial susceptibility. If this trait is passed on from both parents it is however extremely detrimental but is beneficial when inherited from only one. Mutations that affect transportation across the cell membrane might be detrimental in respect to respiration or food uptake but might be beneficial in respect to viral invasion.
Within the human species there is such wide diversity that somewhere there is somebody who is immune to disease x and somebody somewhere else that is immune to disease y. If disease x predominates then humanity will shift towards x(immunity) survival and future incorporation while the opposite would be the case if disease y predominates. In the future, it is still possible for mutation to throw up y immunity and it is true that certain individuals might actually have immunity to both diseases in the first instance.
While you assume that evolution strives towards perfection it is more strongly suggestive that evolutionary processes lead more towards environmental adaptation. There is no such thing as evolutionary perfection, only apparently perfect environmental adaptation. As I said before though, this apparent perfection would only seem so in it's particular environment. Get rid of the bugs in this particular system and you lose the ability to adapt.

[Cathar1950]

From my limited understanding it seems that the only time the universe was perfect and had no chaos is when it was a singularity before the big bang. I am not sure where we get the idea that God created out of nothing. Is there some obscure passage some place in the bible that we are suppose to belive despite anything or everything else that was written?
There is the Egyption god who says " I am he who came into being, being what I created-the creator of the creations....After I created my own becoming, I created many things that can forth from my mouth".
Or "I am Atum when I was alone in Num"
(from FA Wolf's The Spiritual Universe).
The Summerians had similar Ideas.
The idea seems to be implied in Genesis, where God looks upon the face of the deep.
I am not proposing that we teach another ID from Egypt or Summer.
Just in case any one is worried about it.
It would be interesting to see how some nut could make a case for the first 8 gods created stands for the first elements that create other elements(gods).
Thus proving the truth of the Egyptian and Sumerian writings.
I see that all the time when people say Science proves the existence of God.
The point is that they seem to think God creates out of chaos or something and God is self created. But I don't see that in the Bible in any straight fashion.
The latest data seems to say the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Of course this is good news to the young earth people. It is only 12 to 15 billions of years old instead of 15 to 18 or more.
Will Black holes someday explode and create other universes or jump start this one? Well I got to take an anxiety pill. Thinking about the universe does that to me. Two pills when I think of black holes.
It seems that the early Hebrew thinkers didn't think much about life after death they seemed worried about this one. At least until the after the second Temple period and mostly after 163 BCE where we start getting apocalyptic writings.

[QED]

Heat death is itself an impossibility through simple entropy unless there is a reorganisation of the energy that is heat into another non-heat energy form. If you mean that the universe would become (overall) colder and colder due to it's endless expansion then this itself would never make the universe become 0 Kelvin at all points unless this heat energy, as I said before, became another type of energy, which would show a level of organisation in itself.

I'm open to correction here, but as I understand it energy is constantly being converted from lower to higher entropy forms, which means that readily available, low entropy (usable) energy becomes more and more scarce. This is the stuff that drives life along.

It is not just evolution that bucks the trend here though is it? The formation of more complex molecules seems to be at odds with this inevitable crawl towards total decay. Molecules (and, for that matter elements ) are evidence that there is a heck of a lot of order around. Molecules do break down but the elements that they contain can just as readily reform to make other more simple or more complex structures.

The familiar heat given off by chemical reactions results in a net increase in high entropy energy. The elements themselves are the products of nucleosynthesis, whereby massive amounts of high entropy energy is radiated away by the stellar fusion that forges these elements. Everything that is usable is paid for with interest.

Apart from the obvious order in the universe, which is self evident, the belief that the universe will eventually expand to ultimately end as a cold and barren place is dependent upon the mass of the universe being less than a particular value, the speed of expansion and the distances involved. These values and the ultimate outcome dependent upon these values has not been sufficiently understood or calculated to arrive at the conclusion of such inevitability.

The data gathered by NASA's WMAP probe indicates that the Universe will expand forever.

I find it strange that you suggest that to compensate for local order, there would be an increase in local chaos. Are you suggesting here that chaos is not itself chaotic but has a behaviour geared towards maintaining the status quo? This would not indicate chaos but would show a level of dependence which points to an underlying order.

It's not strange at all. It's perfectly understandable. Think of the heat given off when doing manual work. The food you eat comes in the form of low entropy energy which you can readily metabolize. This goes into powering your muscles, which in turn give off heat. This higher entropy energy is less readily available -- nobody could eat it for lunch. The underlying order leading to a general rise in entropy stems from the greater number of different possible arrangements for higher entropy energy compared with lower entropy energy. Like the molecules of gas confined in a bottle of soda, there are far more possible ways for them to be distributed once the cap is off, than before it was removed. Hence we never see the gas coalescing from the atmosphere and entering the bottle.

If eventually the universe was to expand indefinitely and there was a final homogeneous state where all "elements" arrive at a point of being infinitely far from all other "elements" with no hope of interaction, is that not the ultimate order? How is this less of an order than a homogenous cloud of super dense fizz-bangs all interacting in an apparently chaotic manner or how does this fizz-bang state show greater order than the complex universal structures we see at present.

Quite clearly, all the energy at this point is utterly diffuse and hence utterly useless to life or anything. Interesting things happen though, like the emergence of Bose-Einstein Condensates

If we are to assume the final end state to be as you suggest or that the seemingly endless crawl towards chaos is in fact true. The simple truth is though that it is not decay that is most apparent in the universe but change. Given the vastness of the universe it seems that the possibility that life will continue to thrive and continue to evolve (at least in some places) is a pretty good bet.

I'm afraid to say that long before the natural end of usable energy, the spread of life (and other systems transforming energy from lower to higher entropy levels) will inevitably 'pollute' the universal energy supply just as careless societies pollute their own atmospheres.

[Curious]

I'm open to correction here, but as I understand it energy is constantly being converted from lower to higher entropy forms, which means that readily available, low entropy (usable) energy becomes more and more scarce. This is the stuff that drives life along.

While this is true, it is also true that "fixed" energy can also be liberated in for example the formation of dust clouds to ultimately form stars which then scatter usable energy throughout the galaxies.

The familiar heat given off by chemical reactions results in a net increase in high entropy energy. The elements themselves are the products of nucleosynthesis, whereby massive amounts of high entropy energy is radiated away by the stellar fusion that forges these elements. Everything that is usable is paid for with interest.

The energy that is radiated away is capable of doing "work" such as warming up your cup of tea. The end products of the reaction are still capable of doing work minus the expended radiated energy work capacity. Even in an end state of the universe where all that exists are photons, these photons are still capable of doing work(although what on I couldn't say). Even seemingly fixed masses of atoms can still have their energy released by strong enough compression. The total energy is still the same regardless of the systems physical configuration. Admittedly this energy might well be dispersed so widely as to make it negligible but I come to that in a moment.

The data gathered by NASA's WMAP probe indicates that the Universe will expand forever.

As I said before, this by no means makes it a certainty. I won't bore you with the details and factors involved in working out the end state as I am in no doubt you have a reasonable understanding yourself but I will just point out a few problems as I see them:
The total mass of the universe is not known. Are we to use the amount of observable matter then add it (along with other considerations) to an amount of dark matter that we conveniently calculate to ameliorate the problem of observable matter alone not fitting our present theory of cosmology? Do we even know whether the expansion would not, in the distant future slow down due to additional mass (not beyond the realms of possibility if quantum mechanics is anything to go by) or that due to some strange mass configuration this expansion was actually directed back towards the centre or along a spiral (perhaps becoming parallel) direction.

Quite clearly, all the energy at this point is utterly diffuse and hence utterly useless to life or anything. Interesting things happen though, like the emergence of Bose-Einstein Condensates...

...I'm afraid to say that long before the natural end of usable energy, the spread of life (and other systems transforming energy from lower to higher entropy levels) will inevitably 'pollute' the universal energy supply just as careless societies pollute their own atmospheres.

I agree, provided that all things remain equal and they have got the maths right. As I said though, I still need a lot more convincing which would be far beyond the scope of this thread.
And assuming that our universe does not eventually form a conglomerate with other outwardly expanding universes.