The concept of God as the One Law of Nature

[Janoah]

(continuing the topic "Judaism - from a philosophical point of view").
According to Aristotle, the "father of philosophy", philosophy is the science of the First Cause.
On the other hand, according to Aristotle, God is the First Cause.
Thus, philosophy is the science of God as the First Cause.
What idea of the First Cause can there be in reality?
Aristotle proved that the First Cause is immutable and immaterial.
Everything happens according to the First Cause, which does not depend on anything.
What actually corresponds to these data?
I see that such data corresponds to the One-Law of Nature.
Scientists formulate "laws of nature" as approximate, limited scientific models that are refined over time.
But in reality, these formulated laws do not exist independently of one another, but in essence they are “views” of the One Law of Nature.
Is there consent, questions?

[Greatest I am]

God then should be named --- Evolution.

Evolution, by following our genetic programming, has already made us masters of all we survey.

Like the original Jewish belief, we continue to strive both for and against God.

In the meantime, as Jewry has always believed, we are stuck with the reality that man is more powerful than God.

As Jesus asked from the Bible. Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

Constantine and other bastards seems to have decided how to answer that.

Send out the inquisitions and jihads and blame man for what God created.

As Jews say, there is no Torah in heaven, and they are led by the Oral Torah.

[puto]

Nature meaning to designate order or necessity. Necessity is independent of either human production or opinion. Philosophers task is to discover the 'natural necessities' governing the world.

[Greatest I am]

Nature meaning to designate order or necessity. Necessity is independent of either human production or opinion. Philosophers task is to discover the 'natural necessities' governing the world.

Easy that.

Evolution.

[Janoah]

Nature meaning to designate order or necessity.
...

So yes, this is consistent with what I said in the topic.

[Eodnhoj7]

(continuing the topic "Judaism - from a philosophical point of view").
According to Aristotle, the "father of philosophy", philosophy is the science of the First Cause.
On the other hand, according to Aristotle, God is the First Cause.
Thus, philosophy is the science of God as the First Cause.
What idea of the First Cause can there be in reality?
Aristotle proved that the First Cause is immutable and immaterial.
Everything happens according to the First Cause, which does not depend on anything.
What actually corresponds to these data?
I see that such data corresponds to the One-Law of Nature.
Scientists formulate "laws of nature" as approximate, limited scientific models that are refined over time.
But in reality, these formulated laws do not exist independently of one another, but in essence they are “views” of the One Law of Nature.
Is there consent, questions?

What if the first cause is ever present under the confines of "now" thus relegating causality to be concentric rings of distinctions where effects are interwoven cycles that transition in and out of existence?

In simpler terms what if causality is Non-Linear but rather the expansion and contraction of distinctions?

[MikeNovack]

(continuing the topic "Judaism - from a philosophical point of view").
According to Aristotle, the "father of philosophy", philosophy is the science of the First Cause.
On the other hand, according to Aristotle, God is the First Cause.
Thus, philosophy is the science of God as the First Cause.
What idea of the First Cause can there be in reality?
Aristotle proved that the First Cause is immutable and immaterial.
Everything happens according to the First Cause, which does not depend on anything.

What if Aristotle with his theory of causes is making an error of logic? What if he has tacitly used (and many of us use) an unstated axiom to get to ONE GOD?

axiom 1: Everything that exists is either an ordinary thing (caused by another thing) or a first cause (not caused by anything)

Axiom 2: At least one thing exists << NOT what I mean by Aristotle missing an axiom he was using --- in the days of the ancient Greeks not realized that for logic to work, had to assume existence of what was being assigned properties Modern logic demands this. For example, take the statement "Unicorns are blue" You could never disprove this except by producing a unicorn of some other color.

Theorem 1: There exists a first cause G That's how usually stated, but more correctly There is AT LEAST one first cause G. Understand, our axioms allow us to claim there must be a first cause (at least one) but do not actually rule out more than one. I am saying "There is ONE first cause" requires another axiom/assumption --- say "The number of first causes is the least number possible" (NOW we can show just one)

Seriously, if you think you can get to JUST ONE without the added axiom, let's see your argument.

[Janoah]

(continuing the topic "Judaism - from a philosophical point of view").
According to Aristotle, the "father of philosophy", philosophy is the science of the First Cause.
On the other hand, according to Aristotle, God is the First Cause.
Thus, philosophy is the science of God as the First Cause.
What idea of the First Cause can there be in reality?
Aristotle proved that the First Cause is immutable and immaterial.
Everything happens according to the First Cause, which does not depend on anything.
What actually corresponds to these data?
I see that such data corresponds to the One-Law of Nature.
Scientists formulate "laws of nature" as approximate, limited scientific models that are refined over time.
But in reality, these formulated laws do not exist independently of one another, but in essence they are “views” of the One Law of Nature.
Is there consent, questions?

interwoven cycles that transition in and out of existence?

The law of nature does not depend on what is happening; there is no reverse influence on the law..

[Janoah]

(continuing the topic "Judaism - from a philosophical point of view").
According to Aristotle, the "father of philosophy", philosophy is the science of the First Cause.
On the other hand, according to Aristotle, God is the First Cause.
Thus, philosophy is the science of God as the First Cause.
What idea of the First Cause can there be in reality?
Aristotle proved that the First Cause is immutable and immaterial.
Everything happens according to the First Cause, which does not depend on anything.

Seriously, if you think you can get to JUST ONE without the added axiom, let's see your argument.

I believe that the Law of Nature is one. Do you think that there are laws of nature that are independent of each other?

[MikeNovack]

[quote=Janoah post_id=785549 time=1756159323 user_id=19679
I believe that the Law of Nature is one. Do you think that there are laws of nature that are independent of each other?
[/quote]

A) I was NOT necessarily agreeing that "God IS the One law of Nature". I thought that was what we were discussing.

B) But yes, my academic background was Physics. So I don't know what you mean by "One law of Nature". There isn't ONE EQUATION relating all the parts. Were you perhaps thinking the of the "and" of all the laws (equations) to be "the one law". Like "the one law of electro-magnetic phenomena" is Maxwell1 and Maxwell2 and Maxwell3 and Maxwell4 and then we add in (by anding) the laws of thermodynamics, the strong and the weak, gravity, etc.

Mind, Physics does consider the possibility of one unified law that explained everything but that is more metaphysical pondering. It's a matter of whether the "laws" are independent of each other or not. If NOT, there should be consequences if you changed one (changes OUTSIDE that part of reality which was the concern of that law. << like if you changed a "Maxwell" that would affect say how light behaved -- but could that affect how heat moved? >>

[Eodnhoj7]

(continuing the topic "Judaism - from a philosophical point of view").
According to Aristotle, the "father of philosophy", philosophy is the science of the First Cause.
On the other hand, according to Aristotle, God is the First Cause.
Thus, philosophy is the science of God as the First Cause.
What idea of the First Cause can there be in reality?
Aristotle proved that the First Cause is immutable and immaterial.
Everything happens according to the First Cause, which does not depend on anything.
What actually corresponds to these data?
I see that such data corresponds to the One-Law of Nature.
Scientists formulate "laws of nature" as approximate, limited scientific models that are refined over time.
But in reality, these formulated laws do not exist independently of one another, but in essence they are “views” of the One Law of Nature.
Is there consent, questions?

interwoven cycles that transition in and out of existence?

The law of nature does not depend on what is happening; there is no reverse influence on the law..

The law of nature is subject to occurence, for the law occurs. Is is primarily defined by occurence and dependent upon it.

[Janoah]

I believe that the Law of Nature is one. Do you think that there are laws of nature that are independent of each other?

A) I was NOT necessarily agreeing that "God IS the One law of Nature". I thought that was what we were discussing.

From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause.
How would you imagine this First Cause, speaking scientifically?

*** Were you perhaps thinking the of the "and" of all the laws (equations) to be "the one law". Like "the one law of electro-magnetic phenomena" is Maxwell1 and Maxwell2 and Maxwell3 and Maxwell4 and then we add in (by anding) the laws of thermodynamics, the strong and the weak, gravity, etc.***
Yes, something like that.
Therefore, in this case, both a "Maxwell" and heat moves are linked together.
The fact that, according to the Theory of Relativity, with increasing speed, all physical processes, including time, change in accordance with each other, apparently confirms the connection of all physical laws into One.

[Gary Childress]

I believe that the Law of Nature is one. Do you think that there are laws of nature that are independent of each other?

A) I was NOT necessarily agreeing that "God IS the One law of Nature". I thought that was what we were discussing.

From a philosophical point of view, God is the First Cause.
How would you imagine this First Cause, speaking scientifically?

*** Were you perhaps thinking the of the "and" of all the laws (equations) to be "the one law". Like "the one law of electro-magnetic phenomena" is Maxwell1 and Maxwell2 and Maxwell3 and Maxwell4 and then we add in (by anding) the laws of thermodynamics, the strong and the weak, gravity, etc.***
Yes, something like that.
Therefore, in this case, both a "Maxwell" and heat moves are linked together.
The fact that, according to the Theory of Relativity, with increasing speed, all physical processes, including time, change in accordance with each other, apparently confirms the connection of all physical laws into One.

If there is a God, then I think God built the giant aquarium we live in and let's things run on their own. Why would the creator of all that is choose some people but not others?

[Age]

The concept that fits in and with some so-called 'One Law of Nature' is that 'the One' is eternal and infinite, and thus not 'caused', in and of itself.

There 'was' no 'first cause', in the concept of there 'was' a beginning, however there 'is' a 'first cause', which is always in the 'HERE-NOW'.

'The One', at Its most fundamental level, is made up of, or consists, of two. These two, 'matter', and, 'space', have both existed always, and it could be said and argued that both 'cause' or 'create' 'the other'. But the fact that both have always existed, and 'have to have' always existed means that there 'was' no 'first cause', in relation to a beginning of every thing from no thing at all.

The two together, existing as One, is how all other perceived things came to exist. The One is just Everything; All-there-is; Totality, which by another name is just the Universe, Itself.

Any thoughts or belief that the Universe began just arises because of non critical thinking and/or not challenging and not questioning. Only when one obtains the ability to challenge and question, properly and Correctly, is when 'that one' can see and learn the irrefutable Facts and Truths, here.

[Janoah]

If there is a God, then I think God built the giant aquarium we live in and let's things run on their own.

I proceed from that, the World is not created, but eternal.
Without matter there is no time, therefore, to say “before the creation of matter” is absurd; there cannot be “before” without a time dimension.
The greatest Jewish authority, Maimonides, also proceeds from this assumption when proving the existence of God.
And the central Muslim philosopher and physician Avicenna also proceeds from the eternity of the World.