Astronomical evidence for God's existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter phantom1998
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

phantom1998

Guest
Is Hugh Ross’s book ‘The Improbable Planet’, an appropriate resource for a catholic to use to argue for God’s existence with help of evidences from astronomy?Is it scientifically coherent and does it oppose the Catholic view on creation and the origin of the universe?
 
I believe it to be a mistake to hang the existence of God on the improbability of things happening the way they have.

Probability is great to put things in proper perspective, but it is not a proof.
 
vz71 said:
I believe it to be a mistake to hang the existence of God on the improbability of things happening the way they have.

Probability is great to put things in proper perspective, but it is not a proof.
Click to expand...
I second this. I have not read the book, but based on the summaries of it I just read your comment is spot on the money.
 
I had to have an astronomy class for college, I’m not sure what you mean , because that wasn’t really part of the discussion.
 
There’s plenty of evidence

The universe around us is the evidence.

Until you can show where that all came from, you have no evidence to back your denial of God’s existence. Not you personally BTW,

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
There’s plenty of evidence

The universe around us is the evidence.

Until you can show where that all came from, you have no evidence to back your denial of God’s existence. Not you personally BTW,

Jim
Click to expand...
I agree. I just don’t think improbability is a great argument. Especially in a universe of a billion trillion star systems which has been around 14 billion years.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I just don’t think improbability is a great argument. Especially in a universe of a billion trillion star systems which has been around 14 billion years
Click to expand...
////

And for me, the idea that there are billions of stars and billions of years, make God more awesome for me, than the Genesis literally account…
 
St Thomas Aquinas asks “Is the existence of God self evident?”. St Thomas actually denies that the existence of God is ‘self evident’. Remember the great philosophers Socrates, Apollo, and Aristotle all believe in a God because they could reason something greater than they existed. So does that prove “God’s Existence”? St Thomas reasons that only through ‘Divine Revelation’ can the true ‘Existence of God’ can be known. He objectively defends this by demonstrating the Arguments: “Motion”, “Efficient Causes”, “Possibility”, “Degrees of Being”, and “Design”. All this can be found in his Summa Theologica STh I, q. 2, a. 3.
 
I thought the topic was about the evidence of God’s existence ?

Well, at least that’s the title of the thread 😃

Jim
 
But in the 13 century, how much did Thomas Aquinas know about the solar system much less the universe and multiple galaxies ?

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I thought the topic was about the evidence of God’s existence ?

Well, at least that’s the title of the thread 😃

Jim
Click to expand...
The specific book the OP brought up concerns the improbability argument and fine tuning. And I don’t think astronomy specifically serves as evidence for God, just as further manifestation of his glory once you see how nature in general shows God.
 
Last edited:
I have not read the book, and there have been no citations of it here; but the subtitle is “How Earth Became Humanity’s Home”. if the idea is to show the incredible odds of intelligent life forming on Earth, then it’s not convincing.

First of all, we don’t know what percentage of planets have life; but let’s go all out and say it’s a billion to one. Yes, that would mean that it’s highly unlikely that the third planet from Sol in the Milky Way galaxy was habitable to life, but of the many planets out there that do have it they might marvel at how blessed they were to live on a planet that could house them.

It’s like throwing darts at a blank wall then painting a bullseye around the darts and finding significance in that.
 
phantom1998 said:
Is Hugh Ross’s book ‘The Improbable Planet’, an appropriate resource for a catholic to use to argue for God’s existence with help of evidences from astronomy?Is it scientifically coherent and does it oppose the Catholic view on creation and the origin of the universe?
Click to expand...
I think books like these really miss the point. They attempt to sacrifice the natural world in-order to get to God as a conclusion. But the idea that nature is a possible answer that you must discard in-order to justify God’s existence gives me the impression that God isn’t really necessary to begin with, and the only reason one opts for God is because of the improbability of something; which inadvertently admits to the possibility that it could have been nature all along, that a natural world and a creator God are two equally plausible existential scenarios, accept that one of them is improbable without God. In either case God is not necessary, which is a bad foot to start on; at least for a Catholic.

The best argument are ones that accept the existence of the natural world and the power of secondary causes, and finds a way to prove God’s existence without replacing the possibility of natural causes. In other-words, one must show that God rationally justifies the existence of a natural order, that there cannot be a natural cause without God in principle…
 
Last edited:
SeekSalvation said:
Socrates, Apollo, and Aristotle
Click to expand...
If you simply researched Socrates, Apollo, and Aristotle you would find out your answer. Thus, astronomically speaking…St Thomas Aquinas teaches you it is through “Divine Revelation” alone…not man…moom…sun…stars…that truly teaches you about God’s existence.
 
SeekSalvation said:
St Thomas Aquinas teaches you it is through “Divine Revelation” alone…not man…moom…sun…stars…that truly teaches you about God’s existence.
Click to expand...
Not to understate St. Thomas Aquinas’ emphasis on the importance of Divine Revelation and how he is a first and foremost a theologian before a philosopher, but this isn’t true. The Scholastics understood God as having revealed himself in both the “Book of Nature” and Book of Revelation and that we can come to know of God even apart from scripture from nature alone.

Edit: It is true that no one can come to God without God moving him to be able to do so, and that everyone has such an opportunity, if that’s what you’re referring to. But that is not what Aquinas means by Divine Revelation in the context of the two books of knowledge by which we can come to know God.
 
Last edited:
I have not read the book but I wonder if it includes the fact that no scientist can explain dark matter and dark energy, two fundamental concepts that are necessary for holding the universe together but remain ‘mysteries’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top