My Cosmology and Theodicy

I spent decades of contemplation about the origin of the physical universe and the attributes of God.

I feel excited that Theology and Science published my (2020) paper "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism." The article focuses on my cosmological argument for the existence of God while I describe that the Supreme Being created the physical universe out of nothing and nonetheless never possesses the traditionally defined attribute of omnipotence.

Semiclassical theism describes that the attributes of God include inexhaustible perception and power while God's power never meticulously controls creation. Also, combining semiclassical theism with Trinitarianism implies that the divine attributes include inexhaustible love, perception, and power.

My (2020) paper also defines three categories of divine providence, that is, meticulous providence, semimeticulous providence, and supreme providence.

First, meticulous providence means that God always completely controls every event in the universe. Theologies of meticulous providence include Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and Reformed.

Second, semimeticulous providence means that God can completely control every event in the universe while God strategically chooses what to control and what not to control. Theologies of semimeticulous providence include Eastern Orthodoxy, Arminianism, Methodism, most Charismatic Christianity, and standard open theism.

Third, supreme providence means that God cannot completely control the universe and God primarily intervenes in creation through synergy with created agents, such as humans. Theologies of supreme providence include Zoroastrianism, process theism, and semiclassical theism.

1. Semiclassical Cosmology

My cosmological argument implies that tensed phenomena had a foremost origin. And the Supreme Being who originally existed solely in tenseless eternity had created the first tensed phenomena out of nothing.

To clarify, I will define tensed phenomena and tenseless eternity. First, tensed phenomena occur in a region subject to tensed time, such as the physical universe. And tensed time is time that progresses from the tangible present to the future while the past and future are intangible. Alternatively, an entity existing in tenseless time exhibits no internal passage of time. For example, semiclassical theism proposes that God before creation was the entire universe and tenseless while nonetheless possessing the potential to create a tensed region and inhabit the tensed region. Also, God's original tenseless nature remained internally unchanged after the origin of creation.

Back to my cosmological argument. There might have been some type of tensed phenomena before the origin of quantum fields, but that is unknown while I focus on the origin of quantum fields.

For more background information, consider standard big bang cosmology, which is called lambda cold dark matter. It is based on the theoretical reversal of current observations documented in astrophysics and particle physics. Also, consider a simplified version of big bang cosmology that assumes a grand unified theory and the possibility for a theory of everything.

In this case, consider the first three epochs of big bang cosmology. The first quantum fields originated in the Planck Epoch when the universe was microscopic and the hottest possible temperature called the Planck temperature, which is 10 to the 32nd power Kelvin. That is, 10 to the 32nd power is the number 1 followed by 32 zeros or also called 100 nonillion. Furthermore, the Planck temperature unified the four fundamental forces, that is, gravity, the strong force, the electromagnetic force, and the weak force. Next, the universe cooled into the Grand Unification Epoch while gravity separated from the other three fundamental forces that remained unified in the strong electroweak force. Then, the universe cooled into the Electroweak Epoch while the strong force separated from the electroweak force in a temperature between 10 to the 15th power and 10 to the 27th power Kelvin. Furthermore, the rapid expansion of space called cosmic inflation likely occurred during the Grand Unification Epoch or the Electroweak Epoch.

My argument concludes that the foremost creation of quantum fields was a fine-tuned quantum vacuum while a quantum vacuum has zero-point energy, which is the lowest possible energy of a quantum system. Furthermore, quantum field theory says that the quantum vacuum has a universal field for the fundamental forces, and actual particles and antiparticles are excited states of the vacuum.

Now, consider semiclassical cosmology and big bang cosmology. First, God created the universe's fine-tuned quantum vacuum out of nothing. Second, God generated a quantum fluctuation that originated the Planck Epoch or the Grand Unification Epoch while the Planck Epoch never actually existed.

I mention that the Planck Epoch might not have existed for two reasons. First, the known laws of physics break down when considering the origin and earliest moments of big bang cosmology. For example, physicists debate various versions of grand unified theory or if there is no possible grand unified theory. Second, cosmologists can only make mathematical inferences of the early universe. For example, the current hottest stars in the universe are less than 1,000,000 Kelvin while laboratory experiments of electroweak theory would require a temperature greater than 10 to the 15th power Kelvin.

I also clarify that semiclassical theism concludes that there was a first quantum field while the observable universe might not have been the first physical universe. That is, the observable universe is the universe that is potentially observable from Earth regardless if technology permits the observation.

2. Creation Out of Nothing and Providence

If God can meticulously control the universe, then I conjecture that God could have created the Planck Epoch out of nothing. This would have involved the instantaneous creation of the fine-tuned quantum vacuum and the maximum possible temperature, which also corresponds to the maximum possible order and the lowest possible entropy.

However, a philosophy of creation out of nothing in the context of big bang cosmology does not necessitate that God created the Planck Epoch out of nothing. For example, the semiclassical two-step approach begins with (1) the fine-tuned quantum vacuum created out of nothing and then (2) the fine-tuned quantum fluctuation. Divine ability to create the fine-tuned quantum vacuum of the observable universe and then propel the fine-tuned quantum fluctuation which gave order to the very early universe is awe-inspiring.

Contemplating the divine ability has led to different perspectives of divine providence. The perspectives include no divine providence and the three models that I previously described, that is, meticulous providence, semimeticulous providence, and supreme providence. The evidence from creation alone is inconclusive.

The scope of my (2020) paper introduces the reasonableness of combining supreme providence and the foremost creation out of nothing. As I said earlier, supreme providence means that God cannot completely control the universe and God primarily intervenes in creation through synergy with created agents, such as humans.

Reference

James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," (2020): doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the preprint available without a subscription philpapers.org/archive/GOETSP-4.pdf.

-the end-

Copyright © 2020 James Edward Goetz

Originally published at https://www.opednews.com/articles/My-Cosmology-and-Theodicy-by-James-Goetz-Cosmology_God_Philosophy_Physics-201016-225.html.

My Forthcoming Paper and Scholarly Vision

Last September, Theology and Science accepted my submission "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism. Three months later, I inquired about the proofs and they told me that they have a backlog of papers and hope to publish all papers within two years of their acceptance. Researchers wait like this all the time in the world of academic publishing. Anyway, I felt excited last week when a production editor emailed me with my article's DOI and told me that I would receive my proofs by the end of this month, yeah.

This paper lays an important foundation for my future research in metaphysics, philosophy of science, and theology. More importantly, I see a vision for three academic books based on my research.

Before I describe my envisioned books, here I list my modest bibliography that I worked on in my so-called free time as an independent scholar:

– "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy," Resource Publication (2012).
– "Natural Unity and Paradoxes of Legal Persons," Journal Jurisprudence 21 (2014).
– "Identical Legal Entities and the Trinity: Relative-Social Trinitarianism," Journal of Analytic Theology 4 (2016).
– "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science 14:3 (2016).
– "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science (forthcoming) https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195.

My original scholarly conjectures in these publications include the universal wormhole, semiclassical theism, semiclassical Christianity, Relative-Social Trinitarianism, the legal theory of identity, and conditional futurism.

I now envision expanding these concepts in the following three books:

– "Logic, Reality, and Science"
– "Semiclassical Theism"
– "Semiclassical Christianity"

"Logic, Reality, and Science" will focus on my research about the laws of thought, identity, metaphysical realism, scientific realism, presentism, quantum logic, relativity, quantum gravity, quantum field theory, physical cosmology, the origin of life, biological evolution, social groups, moral realism, the neuroscience of death experience, emergent dualism, and restricted free will.

"Semiclassical Theism" will develop my natural theology, semiclassical theism, which coheres with my perspectives on philosophy and science. The book will focus on the semiclassical cosmological argument; God and time; divine attributes; divine providence; theodicy; the problem of evil; the origin of life; biological evolution; moral realism; the neuroscience of death experience; emergent dualism; restricted free will; and the fate of the physical universe.

"Semiclassical Christianity" will introduce a systematic theology that combines my semiclassical theism with my Relative-Social Trinitarianism and biblical studies. Topics will include the development of theology, divine revelation; the Trinity; the Father; the Son; the Holy Spirit; creation; divine providence; angels; demons; humans; the conditional nature of divine covenants and predictive prophecy; the redemptive nature of divine punishments; the atonement; sanctification, continuationism, and eschatology.

However, each book could take up to one year of full-time work to complete, and I currently have no idea how I will have the time and finances to write them or propose anybody a deadline. In the meantime, I plug away at more related papers while I am pray about this vision and many other things.

Copyright © 2020 James Edward Goetz

The Good Place Theology: Spoiler Alert

I love the fantasy comedy "The Good Place." I disagree with some implications of its fantasy world, but I nonetheless enjoy exercising the suspension of disbelief while appreciating the show's combination of comedy and philosophy. This blog post focuses on the theology revealed in the final two episodes, Season 4, Episodes 12-13. Spoiler Alert: I wrote this for fans who already watched the finale.

"The Good Place" exhibits many comedic twists and turns. I note four striking plot twists:

First, the season 1 finale reveals that Michael acted as a Good Place architect while actually a demonic Bad Place architect who designed psychological torment for the damned foursome—Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason.

Second, Michael repents and befriends the foursome while conniving with his supernaturally resourceful assistant Janet to help the foursome enter the real Good Place.

Third, the Bad Place arch architect Shawn agrees to work with Michael to overhaul the afterlife judgments.

Fourth, the four humans, Michael, and Janet finally arrive at the real Good Place and soon discover that all other humans in the Good Place struggle with lethargy.

This post focuses on the fourth plot twist which occured in the second to last episode, "Patty." The six friends finally arrive in the Good Place and everybody there receives anything that they request from a Good Place Janet or passage through a portal. That is, all inhabitants experience a magical paradise. Also, Chidi meets Patty, the famous polymath philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria who died in 415. Soon, Patty requests help for the inhabitants of the Good Place because everybody is "screwed." Then, Patty forgot what she requested.

It turns out that everybody in the Good Place becomes numb to the reception of everything that they request while their brains become dull. For example, Patty, once a world-renowned mathematician, can barely refer to numbers such as the number "5" on her shirt. Also, Eleanor observes that every long-term resident of the Good Place acts like a "happiness zombie."

In a related twist, Michael becomes the Good Place arch architect. Then, he designs an optional peaceful last door from the Good Place based on the belief stated by Eleanor that mortality gives meaning to life. Everybody in the Good Place can experience all their fantasies as many times as they like forever or until they feel ready to end their journey by peacefully passing through the last door. The announcement of the last door revitalizes the Good Place residents.

Early in the final episode, "Whenever You're Ready," Jason fulfilled all his fantasies and felt ready to pass through the last door. He perceived that he would peacefully dissolve back into the universe.

Later, Chidi felt ready to pass through the last door and Eleanor asked him to console her by quoting something from Western philosophers such as John Locke or Immanual Kant. However, Chidi said that they focused on rules and regulations while you need to turn to the East for spiritual stuff. Then, Chidi poignantly described a Buddhist concept of human life and death while analogizing a human to a wave in the ocean. My paraphrase follows. The wave exhibits visible and measurable material properties, such as volume and ability to refract light. We can see the wave and know what it is. Then, the wave crashes on the shore and ceases to exist, but the water still exists. The wave was merely a different way for the water to exist for a temporary period of time. The wave returns to the ocean from where it originated and from where it belongs.

The above indicates that "The Good Place" described some Buddhist traditions. Let me explain some more background about Buddhism. All devout Buddhists strive to achieve Nirvana. Nirvana is typically associated with bliss and the liberation of suffering from the cycles of death and rebirth with a different set of genes, also known as reincarnation. The liberation includes the end of desire and identity. Buddhism also rejects the existence of a supreme deity and a foremost origin of the material universe. However, "The Good Place" world never included reincarnation. The architects and Janets developed a system of do-overs, but that drastically differs from any concept of reincarnation in Eastern religions. Likewise, by no means does the "The Good Place" completely represent a Buddhist worldview.

Also, the fantasy paradise of the Good Place resembles various Hindu traditions about Svarga Loka or Swarga Loka, a temporary heaven. For example, some say that Svarga Loka means "Good Kingdom." And some say that inhabitants of Svarga Loka receive everything that they wish.

Perhaps, the Good Place refers to Svarga Loka that means Good Kingdom and grants every wish for every inhabitant. However, inhabitants of Svarga Loka go back to their cycles of rebirth and death until it ends. Also, all devout Hindus strive to end their suffering cycles of rebirth and death while achieving a state of Moksha, sometimes called Nirvana. Some traditions of Moksha include unification with the Supreme Being while other traditions reject the existence of supreme deity, comparable to Buddhism.

As stated in my first paragraph, I greatly enjoy "The Good Place" while exercising the suspension of disbelief. Now, I will describe some of my disbelief in "The Good Place" fantasy world. My worldview begins with the belief that God is love and distinct from creation while God always loves every human come hell or high water, literally. I also believe that human identity never ceases to exist. Alternatively, "The Good Place" world reveals no emphasis for loving relationships between God and humans while describing that the ultimate human goal is to achieve a dissolved state that ends our identity and loving relationships.

I enjoyed "The Good Place" because of its superb comedy, great acting, eye candy, discussions of ethics, emphasis on friendship, and the possibility of redemption for everybody including sadistic Bad Place architects. Yes, I love stories with redemption.

I appreciate that a fantasy Good Place eventually results in boredom. For example, Jesus Christ taught about a never ending heaven but never taught about a never ending paradise filled with earthly pleasures. For instance, Jesus taught in Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20 34-36 that everlasting life after the Resurrection excludes sexual relations and marriage. This implies that everlasting life includes loving relationships that surpass the fulfillment of earthly marriage while God centers all loving relationships.

As much as I love "The Good Place" and its characters, I possess no desire to eventually, completely dissolve back into the universe. Also, an ocean wave is not merely water in a temporary form, but it is water and wave energy combined together. The wave crashing on the shore dissipates the energy which leaves the water. In my case, I desire to forever live and love with God and all rational creatures such as humans, while us rational creatures flourish with our identity.

Biblical Figures of Speech and Theology

I feel bittersweet about Augustine. He lived from 354 to 430 in Romanized North Africa and became a Western Christian bishop, theologian, and philosopher. His legacy dominated Western Christian theology and philosophy for over one thousand years. I appreciate his intellect and devotion while I sometimes strongly disagree with him.

Augustine developed classical theism and combined it with Christian theology. For example, classical theism says that God has always been perfect and beyond improvement while God cannot possibly change. Also, Augustine based classical theism on Platonism. That is, Platonism is the philosophy of Plato and any of his followers throughout history, while Plato lived in Greece during the fifth-to-fourth century B.C. and founded the first institution of higher education in Western civilization.

Consider Augustine, "City of God," book 15, chapter 25. He said that God never experiences any disturbance of mind such as anger, despite numerous Bible passages describing God's anger or "wrath" which is extreme anger.

For example, Exodus 32:9-10: "The Lord said to Moses, 'I have seen this people, how stiff-necked they are. Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; and of you I will make a great nation.'"

The passage says that God wanted to burn in wrath toward the Israelites and kill all of them except for Moses. However, Augustine implied that every reference to God's anger or wrath in the Bible is a figure of speech referring strictly to judicial punishment while divine anger is unreal. Also, Augustine said that all biblical references to unreal divine anger were necessary for the Bible to reach all people with the importance of avoiding divine punishment.

I agree with Augustine that nothing unsettles God's divine nature. However, I strongly disagree with Augustine on some points of divine punishment. For example, Augustine taught that everybody who dies unreconciled with God will suffer never ending torment in hell with no chance of liberation, while my 2012 Resource Publications book "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy" describes the realistic possibility of postmortem salvation for people who die without salvation.

For the rest of this blog post, I focus not on my theological differences with Augustine but on the process of developing biblical theology. For example, Augustine diligently studied the Christian Bible, Christian theology, and Platonism before he developed his world-renowned theology and philosophy. In this context, he boldly developed and taught his merger of Platonism and Christian theology. He noticed that some Bible passages would contradict each other when literally interpreted and he developed a system of biblical interpretation that implied consistent doctrine throughout the Bible. For instance, any Bible passage that at first glance implies that God felt anger was a figurative biblical accommodation. Likewise, the literal meaning of a Bible passage is not always the objective meaning of the passage.

Serious biblical theologies focus on consistent theology. The consistency requires principles of biblical interpretation which are also called "biblical hermeneutics." For example, Augustine outlined his hermeneutics in "On Christian Doctrine." From those principles, he concluded that God has always been perfect and beyond improvement while God cannot possibly change. This implies that every Bible passage that literally describes that God has changed is figurative. Also, every Bible passage that describes divine revelation or divine intervention never implies that God has ever changed.

Biblical hermeneutics are both necessary and problematic for biblical theology. For example, let me explain the primary dispute between Reformed theology and Arminian theology. John Calvin and other leaders in the 16th-century Protestant Reformation developed Reformed theology based on Augustine's theology. One of their theological points is called "unconditional election" which says that God before creation chose those who eventually enjoy salvation while the basis of the choice is God's mysterious purposes apart from any conditions or qualities of those persons. However, the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius in the early 17th century began to challenge the doctrine of unconditional election based on biblical theology. Arminius's followers called "Arminians" formally developed the doctrine of "conditional election" which says that God chooses those who enjoy salvation based on who responds to God's grace with faith.

Ironically, both unconditional and conditional election are supported by various seminaries and biblical scholars. Also, both sides of the election doctrine diligently study the same ancient manuscripts of the Bible and agree on most principles of Protestant hermeneutics, but they derive major difference in how they define the biblical Greek word translated to "predestined."

This blog post summarizes some important concepts of biblical interpretation. My next post will describe why I believe that the Bible teaches "supreme providence" which I described in my last post titled "God's Love and Limits."

Sources:
— Augustine, "City of God," book 15, chapter 25: Of the Anger of God, Which Does Not Inflame His Mind, Nor Disturb His Unchangeable Tranquillity, https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/102/1020446.htm.
— Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine," https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/102/index.htm.
— James Goetz, "Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy," Resource Publications, 2012, https://wipfandstock.com/conditional-futurism.html.
— James Goetz, "God's Love and Limits," https://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2019/11/gods-love-and-limits.html.
— Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.