I have to disagree with this. My refutations of God is that there is no real proof that God exists. Christianity is here for one reason and one reason only: Constantine’s conversion. If Constantine never converted Christianity would have died with the Roman empire.
IM:
There’s no real proof that anything exists. That which is supposedly on the outside of our eyes is often very different from person to person. In fact, that which is supposedly on the inside of our eyes, is also very different from person to person. That there are other beings outside our eyes, is a common dilemma for philosophers and physicists.
Consider the atom. An atom consists of “point” particles. What are “point particles?” We define them just as we define a point of a line: a point particle is the principle of materiality. A “principle” is that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever. It is often called, the “beginning” of something. We understand point particles to be dimensionless. In other words, if you were to stack a billion points straight up on some table, that billion points would attain no height. It would look as though there was still only the original point particle. If a point particle is dimensionless, how then do material things attain Real dimensionality? How then do Real things attain mass? Physics has its theories. Take a look at those theories. They are not real good explanations.
Within an atom are protons, neutrons and electrons. All point particles. Between the protons and neutrons of the nucleus are spaces. Spaces? Consisting of what? Out in the electron
shell is more space - typically 50,000 times larger in extent than the nucleus. Space? Consisting of what? In a “soup” there is liquid. In the liquid are the chunks of meat, potatoes, and veggies - each one surrounded by the liquid in which they are immersed. The difference is, we
know what the liquid is.
We have been convinced of the Real truths of physics because of consensus. But, no one asked me. And very often even fellow physicists disagree. Man thereby bases his Reality on models, hypotheses and theories. In my opinion, all of them remain
hypotheses forever - always open to alteration, even to the point of total discredit. So, are there any real proofs for anything? Seriously?
Our investigations of Reality always involve a dialectic. From that dialectical investigation, we form demonstrations. We prove our demonstrations by experimentation. When we get to a point where the results are always, or nearly always, the same and therefore, predictable, we believe we have experienced a
fact. But, have we? I know that there is gravity without knowing the math. I know that fire is hot, without having to measure a flame’s temperature. That’s
a priori, or intuition. That there is gravity and that a flame is hot are facticals that everyone knows from experience. But that virtual particles are able to pop into and out of existence - by themselves - is a hypothesis that is largely imaginative. As such, it becomes a object of belief, or disbelief.
The demonstrative proofs for God’s existence are considerably stronger than the former. They, in fact, when fully understood and absorbed, leave little doubt of His existence. Yet, along the way, many people have simply “bought a line.” We have, despite our reason, been sold on and have accepted that Aquinas’ proofs have been debunked. They have not. But that is the “line” touted by no-God salesmen. Don’t fall for it; do your own investigating. And, peruse both sides and whatever is in between.
God bless,
jd
