Does God exist?

[MegaTherion]

So you admit, so far as science cannot prove all of its underlying assumptions, that a degree of faith is at work in science.

Actually, I said science does demonstrate all of its underlying assumptions to be true because the science based on those assumptions yields results (for example, it helped us produce the computer you’re reading this on). That is evidence that the premises science is based upon are very likely true (or at least quite useful for us to accept as true).

Science doesn’t absolutely prove its assumptions because science doesn’t absolutely prove anything – absolute knowledge probably cannot be attained by humans. We’re talking about ascertaining what is most likely to be true.

“Faith” I define as belief without evidence. Science does not require an ounce of faith. There is no faith involved in saying, “This is the best possible explanation currently, based on the evidence now available.”

Now, rather than going point by point through the rest of your exhaustive posts, I’m going to cut to the heart of why you’re wrong:

Catholics merely claim that their faith is reasonable as in logical; not empirical.

Ok, so you believe that it is reasonable to think that your god exists based on logic alone.

Here’s the problem: Hindus believe that it is reasonable to think that their gods exist based on logic alone; Muslims believe that it is reasonable to think that their god exists based on logic alone; Zoroastrians believe that it is reasonable to think that their gods exist based on logic alone; Flying Spaghetti Monster followers believe that it is reasonable to think that their god exists based on logic alone.

All of those groups can use the same exact logic that you do. And your “logic” boils down to plugging your god into the question mark that we all have about origins.

No one knows what came before the Big Bang. Personally, I think it is possible that before the Big Bang, the universe existed as a quantum state that may or may not have had numerous expansions/contractions before this particular expansion that we call “the universe.” In that scenario, the quantum state out of which the universe arose would have always existed (i.e. is “eternal”). There would be no “first cause” of such a state.

I don’t claim to know that, and I don’t hold it as a belief. I think it’s possible.

But even if there were a first cause of the universe, there’s nothing that makes it likely to have been a god and certainly nothing to make it likely to have been your god.

Is your faith possible? Sure. Any of those faiths I listed above is possible. My idea about the quantum state is possible as well.

But we’re not talking about what is possible here. We’re talking about which is most likely to be true. And I don’t see any reason to accept any of those faiths. The quantum idea, I think, is more likely because we at least know something about quantum mechanics (though not much).

Instead of accepting one of those possible faiths (and hundreds of other possible beliefs), let’s see what we can discover.

But until then, until we discover something more, it would be ludicrous to claim that one particular god (or any god at all) is the “cause” of the universe. It’s utterly ridiculous.

The rest of your points are a series of statements that assume the universe has been designed, which somehow, by your logic, makes it likely that a bronze age Semitic deity created everything and sent his son to die for us all (note: even if I grant that things have been designed, your conclusion does not follow).

Of course there is a kind of order to the universe: there are natural laws that seem to function continuously. But those laws aren’t proscriptive – they’re descriptive. Nothing indicates that Jehovah decreed them at the beginning of time. Those laws simply describe the activity of matter in the universe we encounter.

And there is order in life: the phylogenetic tree can only be explained by natural selection of random mutations. It’s no surprise that a process of selection (even though it is unintelligent and blind) leads to order.

Just because matter behaves the same way every time we observe it doesn’t mean that a Transcendent Entity made it that way; and just because evolution has produced creatures that feel emotion and can ponder deep questions doesn’t mean that a Transcendent Entity made it happen.

In fact, those two examples of “order” don’t make it even remotely more likely that a Transcendent Entity exists.

And that’s what we’re talking about. Likelihood, not possibility.

 

[wasmit]

Aquinas’s arguments are old and were not based on modern science.

Did you know that matter can be created spontaneously and that this has been observed in a laboratory? IE…there was no first cause of it?

There is no, and never will be any proof of god. If people trust their religious experiences, then so be it. But proof requires empiricle evidence.

It astounds me, how many people fight for their belief in God, and seem to only belief in him because of what another humans told them or gave them an argument?

It’s like you are believing in what people tell you, and not something that is actually real.

We can’t say that there “never will be any proof of god”, because we don’t know this. One should be very careful when dealing in absolutes.

 

[wasmit]

I’m watching Fr. John Corapi on EWTN and he just defined the word exists to be lives. As Fr. puts it: Christ (God) lives in His Church.

If like Nietze (sp?), you believe God is dead and does not live in the world, I guess you can’t accept that He lives (exists) in His Church, His Mystical Body on earth.

Does the keyboard you are typing on exist? It clearly does, yet it does not live.

 

[1holycatholic]

Ok, so you believe that it is reasonable to think that your god exists based on logic alone.

Here’s the problem: Hindus believe that it is reasonable to think that their gods exist based on logic alone; Muslims believe that it is reasonable to think that their god exists based on logic alone; Zoroastrians believe that it is reasonable to think that their gods exist based on logic alone; Flying Spaghetti Monster followers believe that it is reasonable to think that their god exists based on logic alone.

All of those groups can use the same exact logic that you do. And your “logic” boils down to plugging your god into the question mark that we all have about origins.

Hindus do not believe that. They are effectively non-contributors to natural theology. The same is also true of Zoroastrians.

FSM is a parody and merits no serious discussion.

You’ve listed five groups, but only two credibly meet your premise. The two are both Abrahamic religions.

You’re not very persuasive.

 

[Snerticus]

I’m watching Fr. John Corapi on EWTN and he just defined the word exists to be lives. As Fr. puts it: Christ (God) lives in His Church.

You’re kidding me!!! I missed Fr. Corapi on TV!!!

I love that man!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Science doesn’t absolutely prove its assumptions because science doesn’t absolutely prove anything – absolute knowledge probably cannot be attained by humans. We’re talking about ascertaining what is most likely to be true.

So there is a certain level of subjectivity, and therefore belief and interpretation; since you do not know that reality exists outside your mind. Neither can you prove it.

“Faith” I define as belief without evidence.

You define it as such, but you have not justified this assertion.

Science does not require an ounce of faith. There is no faith involved in saying, “This is the best possible explanation currently, based on the evidence now available.”

It is the best possible explanation based on a particular “belief” that the events that you experience are real.

Now, rather than going point by point through the rest of your exhaustive posts, I’m going to cut to the heart of why you’re wrong:

You haven’t bothered because you cannot answer my rebuttals.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Ok, so you believe that it is reasonable to think that your god exists based on logic alone.

Yes. Because it is the best explanation for what i experience as a whole.

Here’s the problem: Hindus believe that it is reasonable to think that their gods exists based on logic alone;

Just because Hindus might believe, according to you, that they can demonstrate their belief, doesn’t mean that their demonstration will obey the rules of logical inference or Occam’s razor. Since you have not demonstrated why their arguments are going to be just as good as mine, i cannot take your reasoning capabilities seriously. I have no choice but to think that you are just setting up another straw-man.

Muslims believe that it is reasonable to think that their god exists based on logic alone

Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, we share scripture; we just have disagreements concerning the personal nature of God, the Nature of Jesus Christ, and we Christians disagree with the belief that Mohamed was a true prophet of God. But both belief systems are Abrahamic religions by root. The fact that you did not know this only goes to show your ignorance about what people believe.

Zoroastrians believe that it is reasonable to think that their gods exist based on logic alone.

Then please demonstrate that their belief is just as logical as my own. Please stop making assertions and false comparisons.

Flying Spaghetti Monster followers believe that it is reasonable to think that their god exists based on logic alone.

There is nothing about this Universe which infers logically the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. You are caricaturing the metaphysical proofs of God. You have given nothing more then straw-men argument through-out this debate.

Your reasoning is very poor indeed.

All of those groups can use the same exact logic that you do. And your “logic” boils down to plugging your god into the question mark that we all have about origins.

Firstly you have not demonstrated that any of their proofs are as reasonable as my own. So you are simply making assertions in the hope that somebody is foolish enough to agree with you.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No one knows what came before the Big Bang.

Nope. But we can look for the best explanation.

Personally, I think it is possible that before the Big Bang, the universe existed as a quantum state that may or may not have had numerous expansions/contractions before this particular expansion that we call “the universe.”

You prefer to believe this, but this doesn’t sufficiently explain any of the things that i raised in my previous post. You are playing the game of adding numbers rather then logically explaining the qualities of being that i spoke about in my previous posts. I think you should remind yourself of those previous posts, and i suggest you should read them properly.

In that scenario, the quantum state out of which the universe arose would have always existed (i.e. is “eternal”). There would be no “first cause” of such a state.

1. First of all, you cannot prove the existence of an infinite number of something by science, since it is impossible to measure an infinite number of something. Therefore you are ultimately putting your faith in naturalism, based on a prejudiced toward supernatural explanation.
2. Secondly; by presenting this argument you are basically saying that qualities such as love, fear, emotion, self awareness, cosmic order, and the laws of physical reality, ultimately have no explanation, since you refuse to transcend those realities. All you have done is multiply the problem of existence infinitely, thereby attempting to cut off any possible ultimate explanation of physical reality. Not only are you being severely sliced by Occam’s razor by making contingent potentiality’s infinite, but even in this scenario, God is still the best explanation for why there are qualities such as, the laws of physics, personal self awareness, emotion and freewill; since God is necessarily a timeless cause, and therefore transcends all events, infinte or otherwise. God; being the eternal cause of an eternal universe is not a logical problem, especially if you are willing to believe in an infinite number of past events.
3. Thirdly your claim that physical reality has always existed is logically flawed. How can there be an event that existed an infinite time ago? It is illogical. You can never reach an actually infinite time ago because it is not an actual “number”, and if you could reach an Infinite time ago, how is it that the universe now exists? You would have to transverse an infinite number of events in order to reach the present one now. This is logically impossible. The present moment would be the sum total of an actually infinite number of past events. Which is illogical since any event is only potentially infinite in respect of numbers, since you can always add one more to it. A true infinite transcends all logically conceivable numbers, and thus all logically conceivable events in time. Which means we are no longer talking about events or numbers when we speak of an actual infinite. The point is, you cannot make an real infinite by an addition of real numbers, which is what the past is. So it is illogical to apply that concept to the past. There is no such thing as an infinite “number”. It is a meaningless concept.

Even if we ignore all of that, it seems to me more simple, more efficient in explanations (explains more things), and is therefore more reasonable to me to suppose that our universe rests in an ultimate being that explains all beings including itself.

I don’t claim to know that, and I don’t hold it as a belief. I think it’s possible.

To me; its logically impossible. But you are free to believe it if you wish.

 

[Snerticus]

“Faith” I define as belief without evidence. Science does not require an ounce of faith. There is no faith involved in saying, “This is the best possible explanation currently, based on the evidence now available.”

There’s no faith involved in saying “there is a God” either, because people lie all the time.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. <-Typing that required absolutely no faith on my part.

There IS faith in science. You have to trust the scientists that proved the theories that became accepted as facts. You were’nt physically present and watched those scientists do their experiments or make those equations, so how do you know they did it properly? To trust in someone is to have faith in someone. If you didn’t trust the scientists that conducted those experiments in your statement above, you wouldn’t believe it was the best possible explanation, would you? You’d probably say “there’s GOT to be a better explanation than that.”, because at some point, your faith in those scientists was shaken.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But even if there were a first cause of the universe, there’s nothing that makes it likely to have been a god and certainly nothing to make it likely to have been your god.

If you want to explain the physical universe as a qualitative whole, you must necessarily transcend the laws and reality of physics, and thus necessarily infer a reality that transcends space/time and energy.
An “unmoved mover”. And since you have transcended physical effects, you cannot appeal to preceding natural causes. The only other kind of cause that can logically exist, is some kind of transcendent **personal **cause.

If you want to ultimately explain motion, change and causality, you must posit an uncaused cause outside of time.
Why? Because changing events are “time-bound”, along with everything else in it. Anything that does not change or is not itself an effect, is necessarily the root cause of all time, and since something cannot come out of nothing by itself, and something inert cannot move by itself without a preceding environment of casual relationships, one can only posit a transcendent “personal” and necessary being that is perfectly existing and is “timelessly” and simultaneously causing the Universe or Multi-Verses into existence. God is **existence.
**
Now; anybody who truly has an understanding of Catholic theology and its philosophical history, especially concerning Aquinas, will know, that this God resembles the God of Abraham in terms of Gods attributes and personal intentions. While it is impossible to prove that the God of philosophy did in fact enter time in the figure of Jesus, one would not be out of line for putting their faith in the belief that the God of the philosophers, is in fact the biblical God of the Bible. Aquinas said that the “Trinity” is the only concept that cannot be proven through logic. However i would argue otherwise. But I’m not going to waste any more time with you. I suggest, if you’re really interested in God, that you start studying Catholic metaphysics, especially all of Aquinas’s works.

There is no point in debating me if you do not have a good understanding of Aquinas and logic.

My idea about the quantum state is possible as well.

Nope. Its logically impossible

But we’re not talking about what is possible here. We’re talking about which is most likely to be true.

I agree. God is the best explanation.

And there is order in life: the phylogenetic tree can only be explained by natural selection of random mutations. It’s no surprise that a process of selection (even though it is unintelligent and blind) leads to order.

You need a foundation of order in order for order to follow logically.
Even randomness and chance needs a foundation of order in order to function meaningfully.

Evolution as a functioning concept, is the organizing principle of living organisms and their natural processes, which are founded upon the principles of causality. Nothing more.

This is my last post. Perhaps somebody else will debate you.

Peace.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There IS faith in science. You have to trust the scientists that proved the theories that became accepted as facts. You were’nt physically present and watched those scientists do their experiments or make those equations, so how do you know they did it properly? To trust in someone is to have faith in someone. If you didn’t trust the scientists that conducted those experiments in your statement above, you wouldn’t believe it was the best possible explanation, would you? You’d probably say “there’s GOT to be a better explanation than that.”, because at some point, your faith in those scientists was shaken.

I forgot about that argument.

 

[wasmit]

I learned this in a Saint Michaels Apologetics Class

Post 1 of 2
How to prove we have a soul and that God does exist
In two part’s.

Part 1

A philosophical guide to Christian Logic; defending our Faith

1. We must seek Wisdom where it is found and we must seek understanding through “logic.”
2. An intellectual exercise.
3. We must be able to understand “logic” sufficiently to understand ourselves, how to use it in explaining various TRUTHS of our Faith. Thus. We must accept it ourselves. “One cannot share what one does nor possess.”
4. An FYI: Priest are first trained in Philosophy to prepare them to understand how to “think logically.”
5. The three Foundational Principles of All Logic
6. A “THING” is what it is
7. A “THING” is NOT another THING
8. A “THING” is either Caused or it is It’s Own Cause (self-sufficient)
9. A “THING” is what it is… nothing less and nothing more
10. To be “self-sufficient” means that “it needs nothing else.” It is completely self-sufficient, thus it is “PERFECT.”
11. Stated again: a THING that is self-sufficient is PERFECT
12. What does PERFECT MEAN? Nothing missing, nothing more needed.

Example: If you get a 100% on a test. It is “perfect.” Nothing can be added to make it “more perfect,” and taking anything away from it makes it “im-perfect.”

1. “Self-sufficient” means: That it never had to be created! If it had to be created, then it
   was not “self-sufficient” to begin with.
2. CREATO is Latin for created.
3. For some-THING to exist it either had to be 1. Created, or 2. HAD to ”Always be!”
4. Either it is CREATED or It is the CREATOR!

   1. The Philosophical CORE of all Logic

5. How does one discern “The Origin?”
6. Everything has two properties.
7. EXISTANCE = That it is!
8. ESSENCE = What it is
9. This is the very philosophical core of “Being!”
10. For Human Life the FACT of our “existence” is…
11. For humanity, our Existence is “FINITE.” Which means with a beginning and an end.
12. The “WHAT” of our existence is defined by our ESSENCE.
13. All creatures, indeed, all creation is defined by it’s ESSENCE
14. Definition = “De /finit/ ion “ = setting it’s limits, and labeling it
15. By breaking it down and eliminating what IT “is not,” we are left with what IT is!
    

                             5.     Definition of the CREATOR

16. God has defined Himself as “I AM”   
    
             Exodus Chapter 3: “13	 Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations”

    “I AM” The Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the one who always was, is, and always shall be.
    

                2.   God is defined by God’s Existence = God is!
    
                                   3.    CREATURES are defined by their ESSENCE
    
        4.    In Him we LIVE, MOVE and HAVE OUR BEING

17. Our Existence FLOWS FROM God’s Existence
18. Through Him all things “are made” (brought into existence.)

God… is… God

Man… is… man

God is NOT man

Man is NOT God

1. ONLY GOD can say, “My Essence is to be in Existence!”

2.  All “FINITE” Existence Flows THROUGH the Infinite (God alone)

3. The three BIG Misunderstandings

4. The Nature of man = body, soul in unity!

5. The nature of God = Spirit

6. Misunderstanding the nature of “Heaven.”
   
           Not understanding these three issues, is the root cause of misunderstanding with all 
           other religions
   
                            7.     The Nature of Man

7. How can we know that our bodies have a SOUL?
8. What is “MATTER” = as it relates to humanity = that which is composed of body parts
9. That “Which is “NOT MATTER” is single cannot be broken down has No PARTS
10. Something with “NO PARTS” we call SPIRITUAL
    

                                  8.     The Human Soul is

11. “It Is” (spiritual and immaterial)
12. “It Is Here”
13. “It Is Now”
14. How can we know that the Human Soul exist?
15. The Human Soul Generates Ideas, one cannot separate “An Idea!”
16. “Ideas” have “No Parts”, and thus are ‘SPIRITUAL”, proving the existence of our soul.
17. Where do “ideas” originate? In our soul!
    

                                    9.     The Basic Principles involved

18. The rule of The Material and the Immaterial Universe
19. A corolary result: Ideas are Spiritual, the “brain” is Material. A “spiritual thing” cannot be generated or created by a “Material Thing.”
20. Everything that is “made” comes from something greater than itself
21. Something cannot give “what it does not possess.”
22. How does an idea come into existence? Before the wheel. Air travel Ect. someone had to formulate the idea for them.
23. Matter is always inferior to the immaterial
24. The “Spirit” always rules “Matter.” “Matter” obeys (at the service of) the “spirit.”
25. The lesser of two things cannot rule the greater of two things (can’t give what it does not possess). And the lesser of two things can’t generate the greater of two things.

Example: A man “can make” a house
But a house cannot make a man

… wtf is this?

 

[MindOverMatter]

… wtf is this?

Stop swearing.

 

[rinnie]

Now here is a bigger question? Does he exist in You?

 

[ready]

MindOverMatter,

You and Warpspeedpetey did an excellent job defending the existence of God in the thread discussing the Thomistic Proofs of St. Aquinas. I found it very helpful reading both your posts. Your posts in this thread are excellent too. Good job.

 

[agangbern]

You don’t seem to be understanding.

There is not enough evidence to claim that the miracle-working magic man Jesus of the gospels was real. Was there a person (or people) upon whom those legends were based? It’s possible.

A similar case is Buddha. There is not enough evidence to claim that the legendary Buddha depicted in the Pali Cannon existed (it is claimed that Buddha talked to gods and other myths). Was there a person (or people) upon whom those legends were based? It’s possible.

The dates that these people supposedly lived – which are significant to large numbers of believers – are sometimes used as reference points, but that doesn’t mean that we are asserting that the legends are historically accurante.

If I were writing about something unrelated to Buddhism, but wanted to mention how Buddhists interpreted an item relevant to my topic, I would write, “Buddhists who lived a thousand years after Buddha interpreted it this way…” I wouldn’t be saying that I had evidence that the Buddha of the Pali Cannon (who talked to gods) was real. I would be using a convenient reference point.

And incidentally, “history” isn’t some webpage at Washington State University. History is a human science that doesn’t rely on any one person’s opinions – it relies on evidence.

There is no evidence that the legends you believe in are true. Just like there is no evidence that the legends of the Buddha are true.

You don’t believe that Jesus Christ was a real person in history because you did not see Him? What evidence would convince you that Jesus Christ was a real person in history?

 

[cerad]

While much of what the poster said was a chronicling of a subjective journey toward faith, the events surrounding Padre Pio’s stigmata are not so easy to pass of as delusion. Much of the miracles that occurred was witnessed by many people. The stigmata in particular was witnessed by everybody around him, atheist and believer alike. Even a hardcore communist was converted as a result of visiting Padre Pio. How do you explain these things if it was not in fact a miracle of God?

If you are truly interested in Gods existence, and if you are looking for modern signs of Gods work in the world, then you should research Pardre. Read about the eye-witnesses.

I have done some research on the good Padre. He seems to have the same bag of tricks that have been discredited many times in the past. And of course he shares the same hatred for amputees that other holy people have.

Benny Hinn leaves him in the dust.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I have done some research on the good Padre. He seems to have the same bag of tricks that have been discredited many times in the past. And of course he shares the same hatred for amputees that other holy people have.

Benny Hinn leaves him in the dust.

When you say discredited, i doubt that it is based on anything more then a naturalistic prejudice, since many were converted on the account of meeting with padre and seeing the stigmata for themselves. So unless there all liars including the hardcore communist, it would seem that padre pio is a subject that should be taken seriously. It is true that some did try to discredit him, but there were those who also supported him and verified his stigmata. Its hardly surprising that people would try to discredit him; even jealous priests hated him and spread false hoods that were later exposed as lies.

Its sad that you appear to have fogged him off with out even attempting to justify your claim. Where is the evidence that discredits padre? All you have done is made the assertion that he is a trickster. You have merely given the illusion that you know what you are talking about.

 

[Snerticus]

Benny Hinn leaves him in the dust.

That’s a joke, right? Yeah, I get it!

I’ve never seen such fakery with a TV evangelist (or whatever he’s called) in my life. Too bad you couldn’t see Padre in action, as you’re just judging on your beliefs, which I guess is enough for you. At least I’ve seen the Hinn in action. Not pretty. Not real either. What a self-centered man.

 

[MegaTherion]

You don’t believe that Jesus Christ was a real person in history because you did not see Him? What evidence would convince you that Jesus Christ was a real person in history?

I said that there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the Christ of the gospel accounts existed. There probably was an individual upon whom those legends were based.

If you wanted to convince me that the legends are true, you would need evidence. There’s more to evidence than merely seeing something.

To convince me that the legends are true, you would need something along the lines of:

1. contemporary eyewitness accounts of the supposed miracles (not anonymous accounts written decades later), 2) contemporary writings about this preacher (it would help if not all of them were flattering, since real people usually do acquire enemies and such), 3) Contemporary accounts of some of the unbelievable things in the New Testament, such as dead bodies rising and walking in the city to appear “unto many” (Matthew 27:45-53) [That certainly seems like something that would have been recorded by a source outside of the Bible if it actually happened], 4) Documents written by Jesus himself.

Any of those things would lend at least some credibility to the New Testament account.