A Rational argument for Jesus

[thinkandmull]

I don’t believe science can really know what happened billions of years ago.

 

[ynotzap]

I don’t believe science can really know what happened billions of years ago.

I too believe that people take a lot of scientific statements to be true. and for granted, even more than belief in God. Man can be so proud, and inclined to be self-sufficient. Watch what they believe they can do with artificial intelligence, make an autonomous, self-directing, decision making robot capable of thinking on it’s own, with no need for outside control.

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t believe science can really know what happened billions of years ago.

You haven’t taken a lot of Physics, have you?

Actually, we do know, through God’s great gift of Reason, to a pretty good level of detail what happened in the time shortly after God created all time and matter.
This is thanks in large part to the Church sponsored work of the physicist, astronomer, and Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaître.

physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html



Here’s more on Fr. Lemaitre. physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

 

[ynotzap]

The Big Bang theory is just that, a theory of cosmology holding that the expansion of the universe began 12 to 20 billion years ago. There is another theory, a theory of cosmology, no longer favored, holding that new matter is continuously being created thus keeping the density of the expanding universe constant, it is called the Steady State theory. Which one is true, or is either of them true? We know this in our Faith, that God created all things, and His act is eternal, He sustains what He creates. So what appears in our world to look eternal, is accidental, all creation is finite, limited, indefinite. All motion takes it’s origin and sustenance from God, nothing moves itself or creates itself. These truths give us insight to the truth to our cosmology, and this is our challenge to arrive at scientific truth of our universe. All truth is one in God, because He is the Source.

 

[rossum]

The Big Bang theory is just that, a theory of cosmology holding that the expansion of the universe began 12 to 20 billion years ago.

Gravitational theory is just that, a theory of physics holding that massive bodies follow geodesics in the four-dimensional space-time manifold.

When used in science, the word ‘theory’ does not mean what it means in ordinary speech. The ordinary usage of ‘theory’ is much closer to the scientific word ‘hypothesis’.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

Gravitational theory is just that, a theory of physics holding that massive bodies follow geodesics in the four-dimensional space-time manifold.

When used in science, the word ‘theory’ does not mean what it means in ordinary speech. The ordinary usage of ‘theory’ is much closer to the scientific word ‘hypothesis’.

rossum

Interesting, because the dictionary explains the word hypothesis is derived from it’s root meaning- to place under.: an unproved theory, proposition, supposition,etc tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or (working hypotheses) to provide a basis for further investigation , argument, etc. Synonym: Theory How is this different from the scientific use of the word “hypothesis”?

 

[Ignatius]

Interesting, because the dictionary explains the word hypothesis is derived from it’s root meaning- to place under.: an unproved theory,

So, you believe that it makes good sense to dispute the Theory of Gravity just because it is a theory?

 

[ynotzap]

So, you believe that it makes good sense to dispute the Theory of Gravity just because it is a theory?

If it is a theory it will always be open to dispute by me or anyone else. No one has a monopoly on truth, it’s in our psyche. But I would rather spend my time on matters that I consider more important. , and I have theories of my own. There would be no fiction, if it wasn’t for non-fiction, we should try to discern which is which, theory or fact.

 

[Ignatius]

If it is a theory it will always be open to dispute by me or anyone else.

How about a direct answer. Do you believe that it makes good sense to dispute the Theory of Gravity just because it is a theory?

Hopefully the answer is no.

Fr. Lemaitre and Fr. Robert Spitzer have done very good work in the area that we have been discussing. Here is a good and thorough exposition on what facts we do know:
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, Phd.

magisreasonfaith.org/in_the_beginning.html

 

[ynotzap]

How about a direct answer. Do you believe that it makes good sense to dispute the Theory of Gravity just because it is a theory?

Hopefully the answer is no.

Fr. Lemaitre and Fr. Robert Spitzer have done very good work in the area that we have been discussing. Here is a good and thorough exposition on what facts we do know:
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, Phd.

magisreasonfaith.org/in_the_beginning.html

I am not criticizing Fr.Lemaitre and Fr.Robert Spitzer, I think they would agree with me. And I am not saying they are wrong, but I know they are not infallible. It’s not an open and shut case. I gave you a direct answer, but it doesn’t seem that you see it that way. All theories are open to disputation as long as they are theories and not fact. It’s always good sense to dispute theories, how would you arrive to the actual facts? We should question theories no matter who presents them, how will we advance in our knowledge. You offered your reasons for not disputing, that’s your prerogative. I do appreciate the work of both priests, are you saying these men are infallible in their theories, and if that’s the case why is it still theories and not fact?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

They don’t necessarily prove that there is a Christian God, but they prove that something “supernatural” had to create the universe. Here was my rationale:

The first law of thermodynamics States that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just transferred. Energy currently exists in the universe, meaning that either the universe is infinite with the same amount of energy, or it had to be created by a supremely powerful entity.

If the universe is infinite it has no beginning or end. The universe is an isolated system since being all encompassing it does not have any surroundings with which to exchange heat, work or matter. All isolated systems tend towards maximum entropy and disorder. If something is winding down it must have been initially wound up and since there is no natural means for an isolated system to increase the net usable energy, it must have been created supernaturally.

As regards the personal testimony, the people I was speaking to know me pretty well, and I had them convinced that there were two rational choices to the experience I had in Church, either Christ communicated with me and set my life on a much holier and healthier path, OR I’m crazy and not manifesting any of the other signs of mental illness.

Really enjoying this conversation guys, thanks.

Thermodynamics definitely does not support the use you are making of its laws and definitions.

Besides, do you know Dr. Ilya Prigogine’s experimental work about how order spontaneously arises from an extreme disorder? I think it will change your views.

As for your religious experiences and your exemplary life, certainly the latter can be of great help to inspire those around you. If you love your neighbors as our Lord Jesus loved us, others will feel moved to share your faith. I tend to think that while faith strengthens community life (which is behind our Lord’s unique commandment), rationalism (which has fascinated you) strengthens individualism.

Take care.

 

[inocente]

They don’t necessarily prove that there is a Christian God, but they prove that something “supernatural” had to create the universe. Here was my rationale:

The first law of thermodynamics States that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just transferred. Energy currently exists in the universe, meaning that either the universe is infinite with the same amount of energy, or it had to be created by a supremely powerful entity.

If the universe is infinite it has no beginning or end. The universe is an isolated system since being all encompassing it does not have any surroundings with which to exchange heat, work or matter. All isolated systems tend towards maximum entropy and disorder. If something is winding down it must have been initially wound up and since there is no natural means for an isolated system to increase the net usable energy, it must have been created supernaturally.

Unfortunately, neither of these arguments work. See, for instance:

machineslikeus.com/news/big-bang-beginners-13-does-big-bang-theory-violate-law-conservation-energy

machineslikeus.com/news/big-bang-beginners-14-does-big-bang-theory-violate-second-law-thermodynamics

(ignore the atheist asides and just follow the reasoning )

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. He’s a protestant, but I found his defense to be persuasive.

I can’t say that I found it persuasive. But if the associates for which this thread was started happen to have access to Netflix there is also a video version of one of Lee’'s books there. It doesn’t have as much material as the book but may be more accessible to them.

 

[Ignatius]

a Rational argument for Jesus.

What was written in your first post doesn’t really match the thread title so I’ll address the tread title.

A rational for the existence Jesus is that it is a historical fact attested to by every reputable scholar who has honestly studied the evidence.

 

[ynotzap]

What was written in your first post doesn’t really match the thread title so I’ll address the tread title.

A rational for the existence Jesus is that it is a historical fact attested to by every reputable scholar who has honestly studied the evidence.

At the risk of invoking the wrath of some forum members, I will state that no rational argument will prove the existence of Jesus, the existence of God, yes. Rational arguments will produce a great amount of circumstantial evidence in favor of Jesus’ existence, but nothing absolute to confirm it that we can prove. It is my belief that this was intended by God. The only way we can accept this circumstantial evidence is by faith, not reason. When we believe, all the evidence falls into place. Holy Scripture says " that is by belief in Jesus we are saved." It is by Faith that we know that Jesus is God, the “I Am” As much circumstantial evidence that exists, it is the mighty resurrection power of every true believer that prove the Jesus Christ exists, that power to change the fallen state of man to a new life of grace. St.Augustine approach to this question was not by reason, but by faith, then from faith to reason. We believe to see, and when we believe we understand what we believe.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Good Afternoon Brothers and Sisters,

I’ve been discussing philosophy with some atheist/agnostic associates of mine and I’ve been trying to make a rational case for both the existence of God and that Jesus Christ is in fact God.

I believe I’ve made a rational case for God based off of a combination of Aquinas “Prime Mover/Uncaused Cause” method and the first two laws of Thermodynamics.

As regards Jesus being Christ himself, I’ve run into a bit of trouble with several of the other avenues (lewis trilemma, historicity of the NT etc) but have had the most luck relating my own supernatural experience while in mass, with the grudgingly accepted evidence that I am not, in fact crazy.

Would love to hear any other ideas. Unfortunately, my associates will not accept “faith” or “belief” as any sort of explanation, so I’m trying to reach them in a way they’ll understand in hopes of planting the seed.

When I reverted to Catholicism from atheism, I first came to a mostly intellectual appreciation for theistic arguments of God, as you’ve already outlined, as well as a few personal evidential items.

I then asked myself why I would accept Jesus’ divinity.

I finally decided that Jesus was God based on His message, which was radically different from anything which had gone before (although it was the fruition of Jewish teachings) and which spoke to my heart as the Truth. Ultimately, it was as simple as that for me.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

At the risk of invoking the wrath of some forum members, I will state that no rational argument will prove the existence of Jesus, the existence of God, yes. Rational arguments will produce a great amount of circumstantial evidence in favor of Jesus’ existence, but nothing absolute to confirm it that we can prove. It is my belief that this was intended by God. The only way we can accept this circumstantial evidence is by faith, not reason. When we believe, all the evidence falls into place. Holy Scripture says " that is by belief in Jesus we are saved." It is by Faith that we know that Jesus is God, the “I Am” As much circumstantial evidence that exists, it is the mighty resurrection power of every true believer that prove the Jesus Christ exists, that power to change the fallen state of man to a new life of grace. St.Augustine approach to this question was not by reason, but by faith, then from faith to reason. We believe to see, and when we believe we understand what we believe.

I support you!

 

[ynotzap]

I support you!

Gratias:

 

[thinkandmull]

You haven’t taken a lot of Physics, have you?

Actually, we do know, through God’s great gift of Reason, to a pretty good level of detail what happened in the time shortly after God created all time and matter.
This is thanks in large part to the Church sponsored work of the physicist, astronomer, and Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaître.

physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/images/bigbang_timeline.jpg

Here’s more on Fr. Lemaitre. physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

I don’t need to do the science to know we don’t know what happens to the steps in between. It may just seem to have happened a certain way because of a force or forces in the middle

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t need to do the science to know

That’s fine, faith is an essential element. But if you are going to minister to those with a scientific background, the first step is to present evidence that they can accept.

If you don’t like Fr. Lemaitre, you can investigate Fr. Robert Spitzers work.

New Proofs of God, Contributions from Contemporary Physics by Fr. Robert Spitzer is the best presentation of the facts that there is, but if you’re not going to buy the book, try these sources below.

Here the content is presented in a very understandable way:
youtube.com/watch?v=lV5omj2Rd2M

Here is Fr. Spitzers website magiscenter.com/.

youtube.com/watch?v=lV5omj2Rd2M