God Is Not Dead

[Linusthe2nd]

…

.

Thomas Aquinas has answered these scientific " gurus. " Take a look at his Five Ways, no " God of the gaps " there.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…

Article 3. Whether God exists?
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

O.K. Then I want to give you some good advice. Some sources of information can be a danger to your faith because they are contrary to Catholic Doctrine and Divine Revelation. No one should ever access these sources unless one is very well educated in the particular discipline and unless one is well schooled in the Catholic Faith and understands it thoroughly and unless one is mature and stable on one’s practice of the Faith.

Not only are these sources opposed to Catholic Doctrine but their principle purpose is to get you to loose your Faith and to keep following them will have that exact result.

Your one object in life is to save your soul. And to do that your one obligation is to know and cling to Divine Revelation and the Teaching of the Catholic Church. And both teach that God created the world, in time, out of nothing. But Hawking is dishonest because his " nothing " is not the absence of all being, his " nogthing " is a " something, " which he admits is only a " near nothing. " But " nothing " in Revelation means absolutely " no being " whatsoever. So Hawking is wrong. Futher more, most of his ideas are little more than highly inflated speculation, they are not science in the genuine sense.

Just ignore you " Professor " when he gets off onto these tangents.

Linus2nd

r

What all is his “nothing” besides gravity? And could his “nothing” reasonably have been the catalyst for God creating beginning of the universe?

 

[wanstronian]

I think I see where your problem may lie.

I have no ‘problem!’

I came to realize the existence of God through Beauty and Love.

I accept your sentiment, but “realise” is the wrong word, unless you are prepared to accept that Muslims “realise” that Allah is the one true god. I think you are conflating “realisation” with “conviction.” You may fully believe that God exists, and I do not refute that you are convinced, but your conviction is purely subjective and your experience is not evidence.

If you knew it for what It is in Itself, you would know that Beauty, which can be expressed in music, is Truth.

This is a fallacious comment; you are using the word “know” when you should be using the word “believe” - if I believed it to be what you believe it to be. Again, your conviction is objectively no more valid than that of a Muslim, for example.

Beauty is not a value judgement; it is not an emotion - it is a fundemental aspect of Reality, the Ground of our being.

Then why do different people find different things beautiful? Beauty is a value judgement, nothing more. You may choose to equivocate or ensconse your superstition within that emotion, but nevertheless it is a subjective belief and not an evidenced fact.

The other aspect of Truth is Love; this entire universe emerges from God’s infinite love.
In giving and seeking the well-being of others, we come to know our Creator. You can’t just think this one through.

Same comment applies. Your conviction is subjective, and there is abundant evidence that subjective convictions do not indicate truth.

This may not make sense to you, but there are others who may get what I’m trying to say.

I wouldn’t deny that, and I understand what you are saying - I just don’t share your convictions. But many things that make instinctive sense to one person do not do so to another, and vice versa. The only good indicator of a truth statement is evidence, and you have none.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How can music be “true?” Music is not a truth statement, it’s a phenomenon about which people can make value statements - at least in the sense of its emotional impact. So your comment makes no sense.

Sorry, I don’t get what you’re trying to say here.****

As the poet Keats said, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.”

I really can’t help it if you don’t understand that.

The most beautiful music ever written was sacred music. To be so beautiful I think it must register only if it is true to our hearts.

But I’ve noticed that atheists can barely stand it.

So now tell me if you can: Is there some beautiful atheistic music around?

If there is, you might find some truth in it. I don’t find any beauty or truth in atheism.

I mostly find anger.

 

[wanstronian]

Article 3. Whether God exists?
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Linus2nd

Seriously? Aquinus??

 

[tonyrey]

Why would anyone listen to Craig on this topic? He studied philosophy and theology, not science or physics or metaphysics.
You do see how as time goes on, we learn more and more on these topics, yes?
What we know today in biology, medicine, chemistry, astrology, physics, etc…is a vast, vast more than what we knew fifty years ago…and fifty years before that…and that…and that.
Which means that just because we don’t have answers to some questions today, it doesn’t mean we won’t have answers to those questions tomorrow.
The term “argument from ignorance” is apropos here…meaning that just because we don’t have all the answers, people then just say “God did it”.
Or is that “the God of the gaps”? I can’t remember the proper term.

So just because we don’t know “where all that stuff came from”…doesn’t mean a God made it be.
A God might have created it, sure. No one can be positive about any of it yet. But we have less evidence of a God-creator so far than what Science has come up with.

.

Does Science explain truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?

 

[tonyrey]

My friend and I saw this movie yesterday and something’s been bothering me ever since. At one point the college professor quotes Stephen Hawking and his belief that the universe created itself from nothing. Can anyone link me to anything written by people qualified after his comments that refutes this belief?

The more absurd a hypothesis is the more difficult it is to disprove but one simple question should suffice:

Is there any verifiable evidence that anything has emerged from nothing, let alone everything?

 

[wanstronian]

As the poet Keats said, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.”

I really can’t help it if you don’t understand that.

Ah - the old “it’s not my fault if you don’t understand” gambit. Rather frayed around the edges from over-use, but always worth trotting out when you can’t objectively defend your point of view.

The most beautiful music ever written was sacred music. To be so beautiful I think it must register only if it is true to our hearts.

This is a new one - the “argument from nice music!”

But I’ve noticed that atheists can barely stand it.

Which atheists? I can appreciate religious music - I just find the sentiment misguided. There’s no denying the melodies, harmonies etc. Unless you’re talking about modern religious music, the sort of “pop-wannabe” that is just horrendously tacky!

So now tell me if you can: Is there some beautiful atheistic music around?

Probably - it’s a bit difficult to tell - what do you consider “atheist” music? Anything in which no god is mentioned? Is Islamic music beautiful?

If there is, you might find some truth in it. I don’t find any beauty or truth in atheism.

Well, there’s the elephant in the room, of course - the unassailable truth on which atheism is based - that there is no evidence for gods.

I mostly find anger.

If you “mostly find anger,” then you’re probably either looking in the wrong place, or woefully misinterpreting what you see. No doubt you find my posts full of “anger?” The only thing that makes me angry about religion is when it is used to justify bigotry and oppression. For what it’s worth, when sections of the atheist “movement” (for want of a better word) try to oppress the harmless aspects of religious belief, that makes me angry too. “Freedom of religion” - yes. “Freedom *from *religion” - yes. “Freedom to oppress in the name of religion” - absolutely not!

However, as you responded to the post in which I asked a number of questions with nothing but non sequitur and rambling rhetoric, I can’t see any point in continuing. If you can bring yourself to actually engage with the questions, then I would be glad to continue the conversation. If you’re just going to spout fallacious nonsense then I’ve got better things to do!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

However, as you responded to the post in which I asked a number of questions with nothing but non sequitur and rambling rhetoric, I can’t see any point in continuing. If you can bring yourself to actually engage with the questions, then I would be glad to continue the conversation. If you’re just going to spout fallacious nonsense then I’ve got better things to do!

Check your private messages.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

r

What all is his “nothing” besides gravity? And could his “nothing” reasonably have been the catalyst for God creating beginning of the universe?

First of all no one has ever been able to detect " gravity, " science has never been able to measure it. And susceptibility to measurement is the marker to physical reality. All things in the universe, aside from the human soul, are material or physical in some manner, even waves and magnitism. All we can do is measure the effects of gravity. That means that gravity may be nothing less than the actual power of God, which of course could no more be measureable than man’s soul.

If gravity is indeed the power of God, then, yes, it could well be the beginning of creation, That is it could be God’s creative act itself. On the other hand, if gravity is detectable or measureable, then it is some form of energy ( i.e. matter ) and could not be the cause of creation. though it could well be the material " contact point " of God’s creative act, it could be the first material thing created by God, which he might still be creating. amd from which every other physical thing in the universe has come…

I find it amusing that scientists are willing to consider a real beginning to the universe, even though they insist it has caused itself - which is a sign of insanity - while they deny a God could be the creative cause. Matter cannot cause itself, nothing can cause itself, that is a self evident principle of science and philosophy, on this point they agree, in principle. Only science seems to make an exception for the beginning of the universe, which is really odd and really arrogant.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Seriously? Aquinus??

Really. But of course he may be too deep for you - probably is.

Linus2nd,

 

[Faith1960]

r

What all is his “nothing” besides gravity? And could his “nothing” reasonably have been the catalyst for God creating beginning of the universe?

Anyone?

 

[Aloysium]

Ah - the old “it’s not my fault if you don’t understand” gambit. Rather frayed around the edges from over-use, but always worth trotting out when you can’t objectively defend your point of view.

This is a new one - the “argument from nice music!” . . .

You are on a Catholic Forum.
I would expected that there are things discussed, of which you are unaware and/or don’t comprehend. I am not going to argue with a Muslim or the Bahai fellow who has been posting recently, because my knowledge of their faiths is fragmentary.
You of course know all about Christ.

I am going to switch metaphors, perhaps this can reach you.
When I was more of a Zen Buddhist than a Catholic many decades ago, I would have described your comments as illustrating the state of Samsara. What would be happening is that the person, being lost in illusion, would be asking for “objective” evidence, which is necessarily part of the illusion (how the persons mind mistakenly believes the world to be), to prove that the illusion is illusory and that there exists a transcendental state beyond it.
It can’t happen. You have to go beyond to the living Truth, beyond mundane ideas, proofs and evidence to know Reality Itself.

I’m no philosopher, so I can’t formulate an argument; suffice to say that Beauty exists.
The problem with pursuing beauty to find where it all comes from, is that the beauty of creation can enthrall the person, luring him away from He who is its Source.
It is better to follow Love, IMHO.

I can understand that you wouldn’t want to be fooled by fancy words and promises, so just follow your heart.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Anyone?

I just answered you.

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

I just answered you.

Linus2nd

Thanks! Anyone else?

 

[Sochi]

How, apart from God, does something come from nothing?]

Assuming you are talking about the Universe
A) It always already IS
B) Something before the point back to which we can see caused it
C) Our interpretative faculties are not up to or misinterpret what we see as a “beginning”
D) It is just one of uncountable "creations that always already are and ever will be.
E) It’s all in your mind.
F) The Universe and God are One.
G) 1=0! (One equals zero factorial.)

That is 7 plus the legend.

 

[wanstronian]

Really. But of course he may be too deep for you - probably is.

Linus2nd,

Another theist trope - the atheist isn’t bright enough to understand the theologist! Typically, against all the evidence, the theist makes an outlandish claim.

The five ways truly are a terrible defence of god’s existence. They all just follow a philosophical musing, then declare, “And ta-da! that’s God!!” It’s utter nonsense, total PRATT.

 

[wanstronian]

You are on a Catholic Forum.
I would expected that there are things discussed, of which you are unaware and/or don’t comprehend. I am not going to argue with a Muslim or the Bahai fellow who has been posting recently, because my knowledge of their faiths is fragmentary.
You of course know all about Christ.

I suspect I know as much as you. Failure to believe in something does not correlate with absence of awareness. In fact, probably the opposite.

I am going to switch metaphors, perhaps this can reach you.
When I was more of a Zen Buddhist than a Catholic many decades ago, I would have described your comments as illustrating the state of Samsara. What would be happening is that the person, being lost in illusion, would be asking for “objective” evidence, which is necessarily part of the illusion (how the persons mind mistakenly believes the world to be), to prove that the illusion is illusory and that there exists a transcendental state beyond it.
It can’t happen. You have to go beyond to the living Truth, beyond mundane ideas, proofs and evidence to know Reality Itself.

The problem being, of course, that “objective” evidence is, by definition the best/only evidence that can truly indicate the truth of a proposition. Personal mind-journeys may convince the gullible individual, but they are no indicator of real truth, only of a personal pseudo-truth. You are welcome to your beliefs but your defence of them is mumbo-jumbo. Would you trust someone who invented an airplane that flew using a mechanism that was promoted by its inventor as something he arrived at by going beyond the living truth? Or do you prefer cold hard physics?

I’m no philosopher, so I can’t formulate an argument; suffice to say that Beauty exists.

Indeed; it is a subjective experience but everybody can find beauty somewhere

The problem with pursuing beauty to find where it all comes from, is that the beauty of creation can enthrall the person, luring him away from He who is its Source.
It is better to follow Love, IMHO.

Why must you “pursue” beauty? (how can you “pursue” beauty?) Why must you assume that it comes from somewhere? Why do you assume that a “he” is its source? Are you not assuming your conclusion in your argument? (A clue: Yes) Why do you capitalise “love?” You’re incoherent.

I can understand that you wouldn’t want to be fooled by fancy words and promises, so just follow your heart.

For matters of the heart, I follow the heart, all the time fully aware that I am undergoing a fundamentally physical process. For matters of truth, logic and evidence have proven themselves far more reliable.

 

[wanstronian]

First of all no one has ever been able to detect " gravity, " science has never been able to measure it.

First Aquinas, now, “science has never measured gravity!”

I think, on the basis of this, that most of what you claim can be safely discarded.