The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I found this interesting.

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/kelly-lonergan.shtml

Excerpts:

God’s motive for Creation is the potential production of another entity similar to God. While God can only create creatures, an intelligent created entity could possibly create additional aspects of its own being that could make it similar to God. To open this possibility God initiates Time, Energy and a number of mathematical Cosmic Constants in the Big Bang. These interact to produce both Matter and Life, each with appropriate laws of nature. Matter freely self-organises and produces at least one life-friendly planet. Life begins on Earth and evolves in complexity and intelligence. Some members of an evolved intelligent life form – Homo sapiens – eventually begin to make themselves similar to God, in aspects of their being such as creativity and goodness.

-snip-

While God cannot directly create an entity that is not significantly distinct from God, God can open the possibility of the self-creation of additional aspects of the being of a created entity, which could eventually make that entity, or some of its members, similar to God. God cannot intervene in such a process without frustrating its self-creating purpose. This is why God is “hands-off” the process that follows the Big Bang. The Big Bang provides everything necessary for the cosmos to develop by self-organisation until a series of intelligent animal species evolve. Any further development can only be through a process of self-creation by members of such an intelligent species.

Interesting. He doesn't say anything about heaven, or what happens when you die. Are you limited to becoming God-like only while you are living?

The article doesn't try to summarize all of theology, and even Bernard Lonergan didn't try that in any one book.

Lonergan seems well worth reading...a modern philospoher influenced by Thomas Acquinas, who was influenced by Aristotle. I haven't had time.

I haven't even had time to read a short book by Thomas Nagel, "Mind and Cosmos". It begins with Nagel saying, "Humans are addicted to the hope for a final reckoning". I take his "final reckoning" to be something like an explanation for everything.

I don't think that's possible, and I doubt it is even useful to imagine that one big idea can explain everything from why there is existence to why people become sad.