Does God exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Bang, which now is more scientific fact than theory, allows for a start to the universe, but science cannot fathom how the universe started. It is therefore a fact (containing an element of faith) that must be a huge embarassment to atheists who maintain that the universe is eternal and without a moment in which it was created.
No its not embarassing, we just don’t know the answer.The universe could still turn out to be eternal but probably not. Big deal so something created the universe, so lets stop giving made up answers and start giving answers that are backed up by evidence.

But why is what created this universe your specific god? as i asked in the post above.
 
Any chance people will attempt to prove to me Osiris doesn’t exist so I can use the same method to prove the christian god doesn’t exist?
 
The Big Bang, which now is more scientific fact than theory, allows for a start to the universe, but science cannot fathom how the universe started. It is therefore a fact (containing an element of faith) that must be a huge embarassment to atheists who maintain that the universe is eternal and without a moment in which it was created.
The Big Bang was an event. There was already something there. Scientists do not dispute that.
 
The truth is that atheists are uncomfortable with the idea of a created universe. They hate the Big Bang. They have been fighting the theory ever since LeMaitre proposed it. Yet for the last 75 years science has built a substantial case that the universe was created on Day One, as indicated in Genesis.

Ergo, a Creator exists. You may, if you like, choose Osiris. I choose Jesus Christ. That would make an interesting debate. But, on the scientific level, you are most likely on the wrong side to choose an eternal, uncreated universe. There is no scientific evidence for any such thing, so if you believe it to be true, you are doing so as an article of faith, not as an article of proof, and your article of faith is greatly opposed by the scientific community.

By the way, if your assumption is that the universe is eternal, then you have to prove it. You can’t just say it is up to the believers in God to prove that God exists, and then say that it is not up to you to prove that the universe is eternal. Such proof, of course, can never be verifiable, since you would have had to exist from all eternity to prove it.

Right?

By the way, I don’t think anyone believes that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or an alien OZ created the universe.
 
By the way, if your assumption is that the universe is eternal, then you have to prove it. You can’t just say it is up to the believers in God to prove that God exists, and then say that it is not up to you to prove that the universe is eternal. Such proof, of course, can never be verifiable, since you would have had to exist from all eternity to prove it.
Scientifically speaking, the universe’s present form had a beginning, at least according to BB theory. There are other theories such as M theory’s Colliding Branes that also can account for it. The scientific fact is that it can’t be made to go away. Every speck of every thing has been around since the big bang event, and according to all human observations had to be there before. It’s no different than water becoming ice or hydrogen fusing into helium or quarks becoming nuclei. The ylem that is the universe is eternal according to every scientific human observation ever recorded. Speaking personally, that is quite an awe-inspiring realization.

Conversely, we could ask that those who subscribe to supernatural origins show us their gods and creators. That would certainly constitute new evidence in any origins discussions. And we should always remember that for any particular supernatural explanation, there are always more non-believers than believers.

It would be interesting to see how well cosmology’s natural BB origin is favored against supernatural explanations. I don’t have stats but it has to be pretty broadly accepted.
 
Any chance people will attempt to prove to me Osiris doesn’t exist so I can use the same method to prove the christian god doesn’t exist?
But Osiris DOES exist, and is a bunch of demons. Though, Osiris was also probably somehow “hijacked” by the angels to inject some “good” into those “Osiris worshipers”. 🙂

And I’m being quite serious, by the way.

You can’t prove something doesn’t exist, but if you have divine revelation to work with, you CAN show (though not prove) what any “spiritual thing” actually is.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Yes, but WHY do you not accept an “uncaused cause” as being plausible, if you believe that the universe has always existed, since describing the universe that way is the very DEFINITION of an UNCAUSED CAUSE!?

How is that NOT a self-contradictory stance, Seek!?

But why must this uncaused cause be your specific idea of god?
Because it’s the ONLY (singular) idea of God that works! Once one actually USES that definition in practice, one (rather spontaneously) receives “private revelation” which, once checked against public revelation, is proof that God is uniquely described thus.
A god that hears prayers, sends down a son, feels insulted at your sexuality, prefers a certain race of people as his chosen people and orders you to wars?
God hears prayers because He is a set of persons who are interested in His creations who are persons.

God sent us God The Son of the Father because He wanted to show us how to be adoptive (adoptable?) sons of God the Father.

God isn’t insulted by anyone’s sexuality, but only by their actions which create a proliferation of sin in the world (which is the exact opposite of the reason we are in this world).

God doesn’t prefer any particular “race” of people, but He has chosen to reveal Himself to all of mankind through a single “injection point” (actually “injection line”). God’s People (or His “Chosen People”) are His “hypodermic syringe” for the infusion of divine revelation into the “body” of mankind.

God tells us it is wise to fight evil when the conditions are right to do so.
Current evidence seems to point to a super dense seed yes? For universe creation. I think that means that something initiated our universe. But to me the best answer is something very very simple and something very natural. Or some aliens that are fiddling around with universe creation. Or perhaps an elaborate computer simulation. The last two of which, which may be true seem implausible, unless evidence presents is self to support it.
None of your theories address the actual “start” of the process of existence.

You simply choose to say “beats me!” to the question of the beginning, because the obvious necessity of a creation (as per the Church) has utterly unacceptable consequences to you.

You’re left with a “faith” that it just “happened somehow”, instead of the singular possibility that it did happen, which IS still a matter of faith, of course, but it’s the only “article of faith” which actually answers the question on the table.

So, you choose the answer that DOESN’T answer the question, while we choose the answer that DOES answer the question.

How is your choice superior?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlemagne II View Post
The Big Bang, which now is more scientific fact than theory, allows for a start to the universe, but science cannot fathom how the universe started. It is therefore a fact (containing an element of faith) that must be a huge embarassment to atheists who maintain that the universe is eternal and without a moment in which it was created.

No its not embarassing, we just don’t know the answer.The universe could still turn out to be eternal but probably not. Big deal so something created the universe, so lets stop giving made up answers and start giving answers that are backed up by evidence.
They’re NOT made-up answers. They are answers that actually ANSWER! That answer is not “respected” by atheists, who choose to accept answers that DON’T answer, because of the consequences OF that answer.

“There mustn’t be any absolutes, and the overarching organizing principle MUSTN’T be ‘personal’ (three persons) because then we’d have to actually OBEY someone with actual authority in all things instead of simply probing the “machine universe” in any way (morally ethical or not) we like!”
But why is what created this universe your specific god? as i asked in the post above.
The universe is “all there is”. There is only ONE “all there is”. That is a definition from reality as to the nature of existence (from God via the Magisterium).

That which created “all there is” is to be deferred to, because we are utterly at His mercy. (ie: If He could create “all there is”, then we are objectively utterly infinitely inconsequential.)

Humans (persons) don’t have a NEED to call something “God”. God has given us a NEED for Him to be recognized AS God.

We don’t “create” God. God has created us with a “God shaped hole” which demands filling.

Atheists think that humans DO create God(s), while in fact we humans can simply fill the “hole” with substitutes which “don’t quite fit”, which we call “gods”, which are in fact opportunities (masks) with which demons can lead them to harden their attachments to evils.
 
crowonsnow

*Scientifically speaking, the universe’s **present form **had a beginning, at least according to BB theory. *

Present form? Is there any scientific proof that it ever had another form?

There are other theories such as M theory’s Colliding Branes that also can account for it.

Where is the scientific evidence for brane theory as opposed to sheer speculation?

The ylem that is the universe is eternal according to every scientific human observation ever recorded. Speaking personally, that is quite an awe-inspiring realization.

Why have you just turned pure speculation into an incontrovertible scientific fact? There are no facts that suggest, never mind prove, the eternity of the universe.

*Conversely, we could ask that those who subscribe to supernatural origins show us their gods and creators. *

Sorry, that cannot be done. You have to earn the Beatific Vision.

And we should always remember that for any particular supernatural explanation, there are always more non-believers than believers.

I’m not aware that numbers of people who believe anything is proof of that belief, and I suspect that any atheist in a room full of believers would comfort himself with that reflection.

It would be interesting to see how well cosmology’s natural BB origin is favored against supernatural explanations.

This is a very strange argument. Pope Pius XII himself championed the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang was an event. There was already something there. Scientists do not dispute that

Yes, but they don’t know what that something was or how it got there. That’s why it’s called a “Singularity.” Genesis offers an explanation that cannot be proven with hard facts but that heelps us give meaning to the universe. Science has no explanation at all, and science denies that the universe means anything.

You pays your money and you takes your choice!
 
Hi Charlemagne II,

Those are all good points you make. Sorry I can’t respond to them all.
Present form? Is there any scientific proof that it ever had another form?
Six generations ago we didn’t even know that germs and other pathogens cause disease. Who knows what we’ll learn over the next six generations.
Why have you just turned pure speculation into an incontrovertible scientific fact? There are no facts that suggest, never mind prove, the eternity of the universe.
Actually if we cannot remove anything from existence its eternal existence is certainly implied. You agree that there was something that gave rise to the present universe in an event called the BB. In a very real sense the BB continues to this day. CERN will give us a look at this thing a trillionth of a second after the BB initiated. I tend to agree with Einstein that all of eternity is a moment.
Genesis offers an explanation that cannot be proven with hard facts but that heelps us give meaning to the universe.
As you are no doubt aware, human culture is basically littered with creation myths, the Jewish version being but one. I am certain these myths satisfy the needs of many in their attendant cultures.
Science has no explanation at all, and science denies that the universe means anything.
The only thing science is good for is gathering knowledge about the universe. In my view knowledge empowers people. It frees us from superstition and lets us find truth. And that helps me find meaning. I guess I’m not so concerned with death and beatific visions because I’ve amassed sufficient knowledge to enable me to deal with such things. I certainly hope your religion is able to provide you with the same peace and comfort, and perhaps even make you care for the lot of future generations, such as science has helped me.
 
*Actually if we cannot remove anything from existence its eternal existence is certainly implied. *

Well, if we are going to be satisfied with mere implications, why not accept the implication that if the universe was created at the BB, there must have been a creator.

Surely the BB has raised serious doubts about an eternal universe. Moreover, the so-called superstition of religion, it turns out, was much closer to the mark in Genesis, which calls for a creation event, than was the “steady state” superstition of Einstein, Hoyle, and others that (without one iota of scientific proof) the universe always existed. That was a scientific superstition of the first magnitude.

The odd thing is that Einstein and Hoyle never thought of it as a superstition. It took LeMaitre’s math, Hubble’s telescope, and a number of later confirmations to bring them around to the now generally accepted fact of the Big Bang.

Let there be light!
 
Well, if we are going to be satisfied with mere implications, why not accept the implication that if the universe was created at the BB, there must have been a creator.
If we can create ice by freezing water then perhaps there is a similar agent involved in the BB. I can imagine an intelligence routinely creating universes in its lab with its very advanced methods. Such beings might have created our universe in the sense that we create ice from water, so we could certainly imply a creator this way. I suppose, however, that a creationist religion would say that these creators and their universal ylem would have to have a creator too, maybe giving rise to a first creator argument like today’s first cause arguments. Could happen. Maybe such hypothetical creators are in fact religious.

What I find interesting in such a hypothetical scenario is how religion is syncretistic. It incorporates new knowledge, even if this knowledge essentially destroys the old religion. And of course that is exactly what we see throughout human history.
Surely the BB has raised serious doubts about an eternal universe.
The BB doesn’t raise doubts about an eternal universe anymore than ice raises doubts about liquid water. The BB was an event like any other. Whether a technologically advanced species gave something a kick start doesn’t change the fact that something was already there. We can none of us unmake any part of this universe, except in our imaginations. Manipulate it? Yes. Anything more? Impossible. And the same goes for any of our technologically advanced creationist friends lurking elsewhere in the cosmos.
 
… I suppose, however, that a creationist religion would say that these creators and their universal ylem would have to have a creator too, maybe giving rise to a first creator argument like today’s first cause arguments. …
Is it just me, or does “ylem” sound (!?) like the goo that Cthulhu “rises from”?

Is this a coincidence, or the invention of some scientist who was a Lovecraft fan? 🙂

Just curious.
 
How is your choice superior?
My choice is not “beats me” its since we dont know the real answer yet and are just speculating, lets look for evidence and look for a real answer.

I’ll give you a story. There was this scientist you thought there was a second endosymbiotic event - the name escapes me. This was about 30 ish years ago. Everyone thought he was an idiot, becuase he just stated it without evidence. 10 years later the evidence for his theory came along and he turned out to be right, everyone just kept laughing becuase he was right…

For now all we can do is speculate. But we’re aiming towards an answer an thats what’s important.

My current favourite theory is not Osiris it’s actually Smollens theory of infinite universes. I think it’s cute how he has thrown in a natural selection process to universe creation. With the daughters and mothers are black holes and within each black hole is a universe. He’s probably not right, but he has just as much probability right now.
 
But Osiris DOES exist, and is a bunch of demons. Though, Osiris was also probably somehow “hijacked” by the angels to inject some “good” into those “Osiris worshipers”. 🙂

And I’m being quite serious, by the way.

You can’t prove something doesn’t exist, but if you have divine revelation to work with, you CAN show (though not prove) what any “spiritual thing” actually is.
No divine revelation is not valid. We have this field of science called psychology you see…

Divine revelation is either incorrect correlation of data or signs of a mental disorder.

Of course you can’t prove something does not exist. You can’t prove unicorns don’t exist. But it does not help to assume that becuase we cannot prove they do not exist to pretend that they do.
 
Because it’s the ONLY (singular) idea of God that works! Once one actually USES that definition in practice, one (rather spontaneously) receives “private revelation” which, once checked against public revelation, is proof that God is uniquely described thus.

God hears prayers because He is a set of persons who are interested in His creations who are persons.

God sent us God The Son of the Father because He wanted to show us how to be adoptive (adoptable?) sons of God the Father.

God isn’t insulted by anyone’s sexuality, but only by their actions which create a proliferation of sin in the world (which is the exact opposite of the reason we are in this world).

God doesn’t prefer any particular “race” of people, but He has chosen to reveal Himself to all of mankind through a single “injection point” (actually “injection line”). God’s People (or His “Chosen People”) are His “hypodermic syringe” for the infusion of divine revelation into the “body” of mankind.

God tells us it is wise to fight evil when the conditions are right to do so.
No no no no no… You are saying that a universe to be created needs a god then you say that god does not need a creator becuase he is eternal and simple. And then you say all those other things because they have been “revealed” to you. I just wish you could understand how ridiculous this sounds to me. You are asserting so much without any real proof.
 
My choice is not “beats me” its since we dont know the real answer yet and are just speculating, lets look for evidence and look for a real answer.

I’ll give you a story. There was this scientist you thought there was a second endosymbiotic event - the name escapes me. This was about 30 ish years ago. Everyone thought he was an idiot, becuase he just stated it without evidence. 10 years later the evidence for his theory came along and he turned out to be right, everyone just kept laughing becuase he was right…

For now all we can do is speculate. But we’re aiming towards an answer an thats what’s important.
It may surprise you to know that Catholics are just as interested in finding the mechanism by which God created the universe as any atheist. 🙂

All knowledge of the physical universe is to be hunted down like the rabid dogs that they are, and shown how they work in the most materialistic way possible!

But, the fact that non-materialistic knowledge also exists, and should be sought after and described in as specifically religious ways possible, is one thing that separates the Catholic (and some other religious folks) and the non-Catholic.

Morals inform us as to what is wise to do to search the physical world, and what is unwise to do, though not WHAT to look for or what to search, and without God no morals are actually morals.
My current favourite theory is not Osiris it’s actually Smollens theory of infinite universes. I think it’s cute how he has thrown in a natural selection process to universe creation. With the daughters and mothers are black holes and within each black hole is a universe. He’s probably not right, but he has just as much probability right now.
My current favorite theory, which has very little chance of being usurped, is to consider ANY THEORY which invokes an “infinity” of any sort as an “explanation” of anything as pointing toward God as the uncaused cause where the “invocation” of the “infinity” occurred.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
But Osiris DOES exist, and is a bunch of demons. Though, Osiris was also probably somehow “hijacked” by the angels to inject some “good” into those “Osiris worshipers”.

And I’m being quite serious, by the way.

You can’t prove something doesn’t exist, but if you have divine revelation to work with, you CAN show (though not prove) what any “spiritual thing” actually is.

No divine revelation is not valid.
That’s your axiom, and not mine. 🙂
We have this field of science called psychology you see…
Divine revelation is either incorrect correlation of data or signs of a mental disorder.
Heh he he he… Well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that qualification of revelation. 🙂
Of course you can’t prove something does not exist. You can’t prove unicorns don’t exist. But it does not help to assume that becuase we cannot prove they do not exist to pretend that they do.
I don’t try to prove that things don’t exist!

Unicorns DO exist, just as “the squareroot of -2” (radical -2) exists.

The entire point of revelation is that it is information that must be believed in before it is proved, which it will always be proved (personally by God Himself) if believed in first.

To one who has not experienced this kind of proof, it’s suggestion is simply “self-fulfilling prophesy”. To one who has experienced it, the information received is known by that person to not be what he could possibly have wished for.

The atheist sees faith (belief before proof which gives proof) as mental illness. Magical wish fulfillment, where a false sense of “comfort” is gained by purposeful naivete.

The Catholic sees atheism as mental illness. Magical wish fulfillment, where a false sense of “anxiety” is gained by purposeful naivete.

🙂
 
No no no no no… You are saying that a universe to be created needs a god then you say that god does not need a creator becuase he is eternal and simple. And then you say all those other things because they have been “revealed” to you. I just wish you could understand how ridiculous this sounds to me. You are asserting so much without any real proof.
I can’t prove it to you as you understand proof, because only God can prove it to you. I can only give you hints that proof is available from the appropriate “prover” (God, via prayer).

I’m perfectly aware how silly this sounds to you. That doesn’t bother me at all. 🙂 We laugh at atheists for precise the same reasons that you laugh at us, though from a different “direction”.

It is a simple logical and correct thing to say, to say that an uncaused cause is the only thing that could cause a first cause, thus setting in motion all subsequent causes, which was the creation of the universe. What is “silly” about that?

The reality of evelation is obviously the key difference between you and I. But, don’t you understand that you receive a type of revelation every time you physically prove some hypothesis? The creation itself is telling you how it works by your having tested it. That is the Creator giving you revelation of a truth though the “orderliness” of His creation!
 
They’re NOT made-up answers. They are answers that actually ANSWER! That answer is not “respected” by atheists, who choose to accept answers that DON’T answer, because of the consequences OF that answer.

“There mustn’t be any absolutes, and the overarching organizing principle MUSTN’T be ‘personal’ (three persons) because then we’d have to actually OBEY someone with actual authority in all things instead of simply probing the “machine universe” in any way (morally ethical or not) we like!”
No they are made up answers. As made up as Zeus and Thor. And they don’t answer anything, the whole point is the “glorious mystery” what kind of an answer is a mysterious god?

There are no absolutes but we can get damn well near 99.9%. But we remember that at any point in time new evidence can present it’s self which can either change our understanding slightly or turn it upside down. And after peer review and thorough checking we happily change our knowledge bank.

If there was evidence for god X i would happily accept it, it would become apart the greater world view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top