God Exists says Science!

[InJesusItrust]

If we accept this scientist and doctor’s results, then God exists: youtube.com/watch?v=cvMD901sty4

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Granted, but it’s worth keeping in mind that Aristotle reasoned his way to God while assuming an eternal universe. Aquinas thought that a philosopher could not prove the universe had a beginning, so he was wiling to assume (for the sake of non-theological argument) that the universe was eternal. He still reasoned there must be a God.

Correct. No problem. I was just taking the position of those following Spitzer. If you follow his paradigm, the universe had an absolute beginning. And this would certainly require an Almighty Creator after the manner of the Christian God. It would definitely be easier to demonstrate the existence of God if this scenereo, a beginning of the universe, were true.
Whether science has actually demonstrated it to have had a beginning is something that has yet to be demonstrated absolutely. The truth of this scenero depends on actual scientific demonstration. At the moment, it is just a scientific theory. And you cannot base your proof for the existence of God on a theory. Thomas’ proofs are still the best intellectual proofs we have.

Beyond Thomas’ proofs we have the fall back proofs of common sense open to every man with eyes to see with, senses to sense with. When the Psalms tell us that the evidence of the Creator is visible to all, God is telling us to use the senses He gave us and we will see His operations in all of nature and see Him as the beginning, end, maintainer, and provider of all. And really, perhaps this is the best proof of all.

 

[bitterreality]

Two links to two one hour discussions by Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center for Reason and Faith show that God indeed exists. I will not debate this because I am not a scientist. You can debate it among yourselves. But you have to listen to both radio broadcasts from Catholic Answers Radio archives.

1. catholic.com/radio/shows/proofs-for-gods-existence-part-i-6821#
2. catholic.com/radio/shows/proofs-for-gods-existence-part-ii-6822#

magisreasonfaith.org/

Thomas Aquinas would be proud.

:extrahappy::extrahappy::dancing :clapping::clapping:

There’s a clear distinction between proof and speculation. Proof is a proof, but speculation needs proof (needs to be proven). Proof is not a proof if it needs to be proven (which can be recursive).
What Spitzer mentions in the discussion are (claimed) proofs that need to be proven.
So far, no one can come up with any single proof that doesn’t need to be proven (with a proof). That’s the problem with theistic belief system.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There’s a clear distinction between proof and speculation. Proof is a proof, but speculation needs proof (needs to be proven). Proof is not a proof if it needs to be proven (which can be recursive).
What Spitzer mentions in the discussion are (claimed) proofs that need to be proven.
So far, no one can come up with any single proof that doesn’t need to be proven (with a proof). That’s the problem with theistic belief system.

I’m afraid I have no clue what you’re trying to say. Care to elaborate?

 

[ReapReason]

I’m afraid I have no clue what you’re trying to say. Care to elaborate?

I get the feeling that he has been deceived in to thinking that all true proofs are scientific proofs. Such is the folly of scientism, which is not even science.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Science was made by human reason.

Human reason made many other reasonable forms of knowledge.

There are many other forms of the ability to reason.

Chess is reasonable and logical, but it isn’t science.

Logic is reasonable and logical, but it isn’t science.

Math is reasonable and logical, but it isn’t science.

Carpentry is reasonable and logical, but most would not consider it a science.

Common sense and prudence are created by human reason, and they are not science.

Human reason and common sense can clearly see the human body, psyche, intellect and will are made by superior being(s).

Us religious people believe, hope and pray that it is One being. That It/He/She revealed Itself to Moses and Moses continued the revelation from Adam to Abraham et cetera.

A person of FAITH has to be accurate and acknowledge this.

A person without religion has to be accurate and say: Yes common sense does agree with that, and common sense is created by the same ability to reason and math and science.

Oh, by the way, math is immaterial. No one has ever seen four, pi or circle. They are immaterial objects that the physical sciences cannot weigh, measure, or count. But we all agree that they exist.

Just as our mind can see that four, pi, and circle exist. We can see the evidence that we were carefully made. We hope that that being reveals Himself to us here and now. We hope that that Being is still in existence. We hope that It lets us life on after this old body dies.

 

[bitterreality]

I’m afraid I have no clue what you’re trying to say. Care to elaborate?

Don’t worry, I know what I’m saying. I do care to elaborate.
Take the first simple one. He says that God exists outside of the universe. If there’s outer side of universe, there must be a boundary of universe. You need a proof that universe has boundary in order to say that there’s something outside of it.
From literal perspective, saying there’s God/anything outside of universe is erroneous since the universe is defined as the totality of existence. If there’s something outside the universe, it won’t be a universe anymore.
I’m not in the position to defend science. Let alone science, I only use a common sense here.

 

[ReapReason]

the universe is defined as the totality of existence. If there’s something outside the universe, it won’t be a universe anymore.

This is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one. In a purely scientific context, one can only speak about the totality of physical existence. Beyond that you require metaphysical evidence which science is not equipped to provide.

You can certainly hold the philosophical belief that all existence is physical, but that is not a scientific theory; it is purely a philosophical concept which cannot be proved in the context of science.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Don’t worry, I know what I’m saying. I do care to elaborate.

Thank you.

Take the first simple one. He says that God exists outside of the universe. If there’s outer side of universe, there must be a boundary of universe. You need a proof that universe has boundary in order to say that there’s something outside of it.

I think that goes with the scientific aspect-he’s saying that science has shown the universe has a boundary. He’d probably have to elaborate a lot though to convince us. It’s not an “extra proof”, it’s one of the main points of the whole thing.

From literal perspective, saying there’s God/anything outside of universe is erroneous since the universe is defined as the totality of existence. If there’s something outside the universe, it won’t be a universe anymore.

So you find the idea of the multiverse nonsensical? I’m not saying this in an accusatory manner, I’m just wondering. I think Fr. Barron probably meant “universe” as “everything that PHYSICALLY exists”.

I’m not in the position to defend science. Let alone science, I only use a common sense here.

 

[bitterreality]

This is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one. In a purely scientific context, one can only speak about the totality of physical existence.

Again, I repeat I’m not trying to defend science. Here I only use common sense.
Metaphysical or physical doesn’t matter, universe includes everything.

Beyond that you require metaphysical evidence which science is not equipped to provide.

This statement is not true. If ghost is an example for what you called metaphysical, how about those numerous proofs of ghost caught on tape.

You can certainly hold the philosophical belief that all existence is physical, but that is not a scientific theory; it is purely a philosophical concept which cannot be proved in the context of science.

Sorry I don’t really get this. But one thing for sure is, that metaphysical things (not only physical) exists in reality. And talking about universe is talking about reality.
Hope this can clear our understanding on terms we use.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Don’t worry, I know what I’m saying. I do care to elaborate.
Take the first simple one. He says that God exists outside of the universe. If there’s outer side of universe, there must be a boundary of universe. You need a proof that universe has boundary in order to say that there’s something outside of it.
From literal perspective, saying there’s God/anything outside of universe is erroneous since the universe is defined as the totality of existence. If there’s something outside the universe, it won’t be a universe anymore.
I’m not in the position to defend science. Let alone science, I only use a common sense here.

When we say God exists outside of the universe, it is not meant in the same sense as being “outside of a building”, as though God is standing just beyond the edge of the universe, raising his hand to knock on its door.

God is not a physical being, so he has no spatial relationship to the universe.

It is also important to note that you are taking the term “universe” much too literally for the context of this proposition. In this formula, the universe is understood as the material world, which God, as aforementioned, exists apart from.

A closer analogy would be that of an alternate dimension or something to that effect, but even that comparison fails, dealing as it still does with material realities.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Again, I repeat I’m not trying to defend science. Here I only use common sense.
Metaphysical or physical doesn’t matter, universe includes everything.

No, it doesn’t. (see my first response to you, above.) What we call the universe refers strictly to the material world. If you want to argue that it must include spiritual dimensions, then you are simply moving the goalposts and have done nothing to advance your argument.

This statement is not true. If ghost is an example for what you called metaphysical, how about those numerous proofs of ghost caught on tape.

There is no prohibition in metaphysical philosophy on metaphysical realities having an effect in and on the physical world, including cameras.

In fact, it’s the cornerstone of theism.

Sorry I don’t really get this. But one thing for sure is, that metaphysical things (not only physical) exists in reality. And talking about universe is talking about reality.
Hope this can clear our understanding on terms we use.

Talking about the universe is talking about material reality.

 

[buffalo]

** Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem - in a nutshell.**

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There’s a clear distinction between proof and speculation. Proof is a proof, but speculation needs proof (needs to be proven). Proof is not a proof if it needs to be proven (which can be recursive).
What Spitzer mentions in the discussion are (claimed) proofs that need to be proven.
So far, no one can come up with any single proof that doesn’t need to be proven (with a proof). That’s the problem with theistic belief system.

Granted. The " proofs, " whether offered by Spitzer or by Thomas Aquinas are " reasons. " And as far as " reasons " are concerned there are at least 20 or so which can lead on to belief in God. Christians are not required to " prove " the existence of God. We believe it and most of us have good reasons for doing so. People have asked us why we believe? We have told them, it is not reasonable to expect us to give reasons which cannot be rebuffed. People can and will reject any reason given. Not all people however.

But as far as proofs go, even science cannot offer absolute proofs for its theories. All their reasons or proofs are subject to correction or even rejection by science’s own methodology. On the other hand, the conclusions of Christianity are absolute because they are not based soley on reason but ultimately they are based on the Revelation by God who does not lie. So our ultimate proof, Revelation, is absolute.

 

[bitterreality]

What we call the universe refers strictly to the material world. If you want to argue that it must include spiritual dimensions, then you are simply moving the goalposts and have done nothing to advance your argument.

We’ll see who has put himself in situation with nothing to advance your argument. Please read carefully below.

There is no prohibition in metaphysical philosophy on metaphysical realities having an effect in and on the physical world, including cameras.

In fact, it’s the cornerstone of theism.

Talking about the universe is talking about material reality.

I see inconsistency in what you say here. Cameras capture image of things in material reality, right?. You agree cameras can capture the image of ghost, which means ghost, a thing of spiritual dimension, exists in material reality. Thus we can conclude spiritual dimension exists in material reality (the universe).

This is what used to happen to me when I have a discussion with a Christian or any theistic person. They tend to invalidate their own view without knowing it until it’s too late. No offense, it’s just true. (btw that’s why use bitterreality as username)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There’s a clear distinction between proof and speculation. Proof is a proof, but speculation needs proof (needs to be proven). Proof is not a proof if it needs to be proven (which can be recursive).
What Spitzer mentions in the discussion are (claimed) proofs that need to be proven.
So far, no one can come up with any single proof that doesn’t need to be proven (with a proof). That’s the problem with theistic belief system.

I don’t know why anyone should grant you the right to decide what is proof and what is speculation. The arguments Spitzer offers are valid based on the current state of Physics. It seems a high probability that science is correct.

But of course there are dozens more " proofs " for the existence of God. You can look up my posts and those of some of the others on this thread and find these arguments. What I and others have said here is perfectly reasonable. And of course you have the right to reject any and all arguments.