Does science prove gods existence?

[Peter_Plato]

@Hee_Zen

To simplify the point of my last post, we could use an analogy.

There are three perspectives as to the nature of ultimate reality that any “knower” could take.

1. Reality is like a rock or inorganic compound that is simply “there” to be dissected, analyzed and conclusions drawn about it. Let’s call this the “materialist” view.
2. Reality is alive and elusive like a proverbial deer in the forest. It would be necessary to make oneself somewhat “invisible” to find out about the true nature of reality. Some quantum theories seem to hint at the “observer” affecting reality in precisely this way and have proposed that “observer effect” is, indeed, demonstrable. Let’s call this the “quantum” view.
3. Reality is far more capable and intentional than we can possibly understand. Not only is it alive and elusive but in order to be known we, as observers, bear the requirement of conforming ourselves to the expectations of Reality. We must remove our sandals, so to speak, because we are on Holy Ground. Only then do we begin to catch oblique glimpss of Reality. This would be the “classical theist” view

Notice…

1. Presumes we are in control and reality is merely passive and (somewhat) knowable.
2. Presumes the control is somewhat equal between us and reality, that some conformity is required by both the observer and the observed, but both are “living” in some sense.
3. Presumes that the control is not very much, if at all, on our side. That the supposed “observed” is, in fact, the “Knower” with what amounts to complete control.

You assume 1) is the decided way of things, yet you haven’t “proved” that. You do keep glossing over the fact that you have special privilege by insisting everyone else bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that their paradigm is true under the terms of your paradigm, yet shoulder no such burden.
I am not convinced merely because you insist that things must be your way.
Minimally, I suggest, fairness dictates that we assume any of the three paradigms could, in fact, be true.
My suspicion, is that 3) is correct, but for very different reasons than you have for claiming 1) is. I am not sure those reasons can be adequately expressed in 1) terms or with 1) presumptions, if you see what I mean.

 

[inocente]

Do you think the Big Bang supports or refutes the existence of God?

Neither. I agree with Lemaître, as I quoted.

I guess as I joined the thread I should post to the OP:

 

[inocente]

Help! I’m on the VERGE of losing my faith. I try to look for evidence through philosphy and science but only come up with more questions! The string theory for example, seems like it replaces god! Is it logical to believe god exists!? I’ve looked up EVERY SINGLE PAGE! Please help me!

Jesus always speaks of faith, never of proofs, so if you want to follow Christ then obviously you can only do it through faith.

I’ve never met a Catholic in real life who shares the obsession with proofs of some posters on CAF. If you can’t feel the presence of a living God in (say) the Eucharist then a scientific hypothesis or metaphysical argument is a poor substitute. You can’t be friends with an hypothesis. No argument sacrificed itself for you.

"I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love. "

Maybe the proof-seekers find the notion of actually meeting Jesus embarrassing or something. Is there a charismatic Catholic group near you? Here’s a bunch of Pentecostals.

youtube.com/watch?v=zAupXGvqNW4 - What a friend I’ve found - Delirious with Hillsong

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus always speaks of faith, never of proofs, so if you want to follow Christ then obviously you can only do it through faith.

That is only the conclusion if you ignore the rest of the Bible.

One of my favorite verses is from Isaiah: * Come, let us reason together.*

There is no reason to use any kind of “ONLY” or “ALONE” in theology. Both/ands are the better paradigm.

And even that is not an ONLY. That is: We reject ONLY both/ands for everything.

For we do say: Salvation is through Christ ALONE through His Body, the Catholic Church ALONE.

 

[PRmerger]

Neither. I agree with Lemaître, as I quoted.

I guess as I joined the thread I should post to the OP:

So do you reject this statement: the universe began to exist.

 

[buffalo]

Noone is saying that science is either a perfect or ultimate method of finding truth.
But it IS the best we have available.

Can you provide a better one?

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Emprirical science, that is observable, repeatable and predictable can only take us so far. By definition, science cannot speak to the supernatural. It has painted itself into a corner. Science is provisional and can change each day. Once outside of being empirical it strays into philosophy.

Our evo developed brain alone is not a reliable truth detector.

Yes, it is know as Revelation, someone outside our frame of reference tells us truth.

 

[buffalo]

False.
Science is what works best to FIND truth.
Know the difference.

None of this is what I said.

Actually, engineering by trial and error produces stuff that works. Does it work the best though?

 

[buffalo]

The subjective existence of another is an even more vexing issue for science.

So, my point would be that science is not the best method for ultimately knowing the truth since it cannot be used to ground the “knowing” of anything in the first place or what it means to “know” at all.

Again, since science depends upon truths established by philosophy and logic to make any believable case whatsoever, it cannot be the “best” method for knowing the truth.

Human reasoning is the weak link in evaluating data. ( and even producing the correct data)

 

[PRmerger]

If you can’t feel the presence of a living God in (say) the Eucharist then a scientific hypothesis or metaphysical argument is a poor substitute. You can’t be friends with an hypothesis. No argument sacrificed itself for you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Jesus always speaks of faith, never of proofs, so if you want to follow Christ then obviously you can only do it through faith.

Not true. He carefully explicated every point he made using sound arguments, often with Scriptural or self-evident premises. Admittedly, obviously promoting the need for sound “reasoning” was not the goal of his ministry, but who says sound reasoning is antithetical to Christianity or that it is the principal goal of philosophy?

To know, love and live by the truth is the goal both of Jesus’ ministry and philosophy in the classic sense of “lover of wisdom.” It just happens that these coincide because Jesus is the Truth (along with being the Way and the Life.)

equip.org/articles/jesus-philosopher-and-apologist/#christian-books-1

Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.(Matt 10:16)

Notice, “loyal as puppy dogs” or “dumb as stumps” are not on the list.

Jesus might have had “reasons” for saying what he did, no? And those “reasons” would have been in line with the laws of logic, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Notice, “loyal as puppy dogs” or “dumb as stumps” are not on the list.

Heh. Love it. :bowdown2:

 

[Scientia_Dei]

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

[Scientia_Dei]

coldcasechristianity.com/

 

[Scientia_Dei]

strangenotions.com/

 

[Scientia_Dei]

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[inocente]

inocente;12502158:

Jesus always speaks of faith, never of proofs, so if you want to follow Christ then obviously you can only do it through faith.

That is only the conclusion if you ignore the rest of the Bible.

One of my favorite verses is from Isaiah: * Come, let us reason together.*

There is no reason to use any kind of “ONLY” or “ALONE” in theology. Both/ands are the better paradigm.

And even that is not an ONLY. That is: We reject ONLY both/ands for everything.

For we do say: Salvation is through Christ ALONE through His Body, the Catholic Church ALONE.

Did you intend your implication that faith is unreasonable?

But sure, let’s completely ignore that Christ never speaks of proofs, only, ever, of faith.

*And they went and woke him up, saying, ‘Lord, save us! We are perishing!’ And he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid, you -]of little faith/-] of inadequate metaphysical proof?’

“Truly I tell you, if you have -]faith/-] a scientific hypothesis as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”*

 

[inocente]

So do you reject this statement: the universe began to exist.

I agree with Lemaître, as quoted.

There’s a whole bunch of metaphysical wittering on the little word “began”. I think I’d reject your statement as written as it implies the universe took on the attribute of existence, as if existence is a coat it began to wear. That would get us both in terrible trouble with the metaphysical thought police.

 

[inocente]

Not true. He carefully explicated every point he made using sound arguments, often with Scriptural or self-evident premises. Admittedly, obviously promoting the need for sound “reasoning” was not the goal of his ministry, but who says sound reasoning is antithetical to Christianity or that it is the principal goal of philosophy?

Another one who implies faith is irrational.

All those millions of Christians in dire need of a rational proof. You should start a ministry to send missionaries to the world’s Christians so they no longer have to rely on trust in Christ but can cite a nice solid metaphysical proof. For that’s the work of the Lord, let’s have done with amazing grace, may the light of symbolic logic shine on the kingdom!

 

[Winterwolf00]

I agree with Lemaître, as quoted.

There’s a whole bunch of metaphysical wittering on the little word “began”. I think I’d reject your statement as written as it implies the universe took on the attribute of existence, as if existence is a coat it began to wear. That would get us both in terrible trouble with the metaphysical thought police.

Seeing as how I’ve often heard the statement several times that ‘before the universe’ is a contradiction because time itself did not even exist at that point.
So basically at some points the topic of the Big Bang becomes something of a Mind-Screw.

Evolution and biology is SO much easier to talk about then Quantum Physics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Did you intend your implication that faith is unreasonable?

But sure, let’s completely ignore that Christ never speaks of proofs, only, ever, of faith.

*And they went and woke him up, saying, ‘Lord, save us! We are perishing!’ And he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid, you -]of little faith/-] of inadequate metaphysical proof?’

“Truly I tell you, if you have -]faith/-] a scientific hypothesis as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”*

It may be your claim that Jesus never speaks of proofs, but he certainly implements them all of the time. Read the article that I cited in my last post.

The problem with insisting on faith alone is that there is no need to ever specify what it is that you have faith in.

If the truth is important, then knowing what is consistent with the truth is a key element of following or living by the Truth. To claim one must merely have “faith” as an undefined expectation in terms of what precisely that faith involves leaves open numerous possibilities. Reasoning allows greater clarify in terms of Who you have faith in along with providing some guidance as to when and why a mountain might need to be moved from here to there. Or do you suppose God will provide all the prompts, via a large TelePrompTer in the sky, and leave none of the determining up to you?

I have never, by the way, witnessed you moving a mountain from here to there, so I am skeptical that you know of what you speak or that you have faith of the specific kind required to move mountains. Or even that you know what it takes to obtain that kind of faith.

It certainly cannot be merely a generic “faith” with no defined object that magically produces the power to move mountains, can it? I have faith that the chair I am sitting on will hold me, does that mean that little faith allows me to move mountains? It hasn’t yet produced that level of transcendent energy, but I’ll keep working on it.

Well, no really. Moving mountains doesn’t really interest me, unless “mountain” is a metaphor for my lack of resolve to do good or the will of God.

Man, as far as I can tell, is a rational animal. That involves doing the right things for the right “reasons.” Determining the right things is a matter of having a good heart. The right reasons is a matter of having a good head. Moving mountains willy nilly or “just 'cause” and for no good reason (there is that word again) doesn’t strike me as all that important in the bigger scheme of things.

So, I guess if your goal is to move mountains, then go ahead and work on your “faith” in order to obtain such power over the created order. I have no such ambitions. For me, knowing the truth and living it simply and completely is sufficient.

I would say, as an end in itself, knowing God (the Truth) is much more desirable than having faith in God, no? In other words, faith could be a vehicle for coming to know God, but, ultimately, it is the apprehending, knowing or “coming face to face” with God, the Truth, that is the important thing.

It is because we are separated from God by a shadowy veil that faith is required, but when that veil is removed, knowing and loving will completely displace faith.

In the meantime, faith and reason are both means of coming to know God. Two wings working in tandem.