God Is Not Dead

[wanstronian]

" Simple " as in uncomposed of parts or matter, not subject to change, in which essence and existence are one, pure spirit. He has always existed and because he exists, we exist. He created the universe by willing it to exist. It exists because He IS ( As he told Moses), there is no " why " to his existence, he just IS.

That’s a very specific meaning of the word, “simple.” I think a more appropriate phrase would be “infinitely complex.” And you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate such a claim.

" How can it be “simple” and yet create an entire universe? " Really! If the universe, pure dumb matter, can create itself, then it should not be beyond reason that God could. If the universe can, God can.( Not that I think that the universe can, that is your opinion. )

Nobody said the universe “created itself.” But even allowing for that, and for the bold assertion that the Universe couldn’t spontaneously come into existence (despite robust theoretical models and growing experimental evidence to the contrary) and it needed God to do it – where did God come from? Who or what made “him?” Or did “he” make “himself?”

And the theist’s answer to that is always the same (and it’s the same mistake that WLC makes) - that because we know something began to exist, something else must have caused it, and that thing was (again, arbitrarily) God. But with “God,” theists arbitrarily and with no evidence whatsoever, claim that “he” “always existed,” thereby (they think) absolving themselves of the responsibility of defending “his” origin. This is the “Special Pleading” fallacy, and it’s applied to the concept of God, and his supposed attributes, liberally. It’s usually coupled with the “Begging the question” fallacy, in that theists don’t think Special Pleading applies to God “because he’s God.” It’s a fallacious set of arguments that don’t stand up to the barest objective scrutiny.

But at least you’ve had a go at answering some of my questions, so I thank you for that.

 

[wanstronian]

Even Newton speculated that it might simply be the power of God.

Dude, Newton strutted his stuff 350 years ago. Science has moved on. This is the “argument from ancient scientists who got a couple of things right” - it doesn’t mean he was right about everything. And Newton didn’t “show” the existence of God at any point. He speculated - during a time of almost total religious obsequience amongst the populace - that God might be involved. Who knows whether he was worried about a “Galileo moment” when he said that?

 

[wanstronian]

Yes, I read/listened to them but I wanted something more scientifically definitive than what has so far been posted.

I think you’ll struggle to find scientific refutation, especially if you’re being pointed in the direction of theist writers.

 

[wanstronian]

I am completely not surprised that you would think that. That’s your problem.

What’s my problem? That on balance, there’s a chance I know as much about the subject as you? Why is that wrong? You know nothing about me, how can you possibly judge?

More than a little arrogance on your part there, I think.

As you seem to know me so well, please enlighten me as to what I’m missing.

 

[wanstronian]

I don’t think philosophy is able to answer these questions which IMO are science based.

Quite - Hawking is as qualified as anyone else. It’s only when science provides answers that theists don’t like, that philosophy suddenly becomes the yardstick of truth!

 

[wanstronian]

I really don’t know, that is not the point. What he says and what Dawkins and the others say is contrary to Divine Revelation and to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. In fact it is contrary to Defined Dogma. No Catholic can remain a Catholic in good standing, they may not validly recieve the sacraments, and believe what these men are saying, because to do so is to reject both Divine Revelation and Catholic Dogma. And because the Church speaks the Truth about God and Divine Revelation, I know they are wrong.

I also know they are wrong because the world cannot create itself. That is contrary to reason. See the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas.

Linus2nd

And this is why, little by little, religion is dying. Because it’s denying the evidence and resorting to scripture which was invented by men. And more and more people are coming along and realising that religious teachings do not make sense in light of the empirical teachings of science.

Genesis, for example. It’s wrong. That has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. There was no Adam and Eve. So there was no original sin. So Jesus, if he even existed, died for nothing. And God, if he exists, knew it all along.

These are stories that have a certain logic to them in the absence of real knowledge. But they no more stand up to scrutiny than do the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. Of course Cinderella would go to the ball if a fairy godmother appeared and turned a pumpkin into a carriage and some mice into some white horses. Why would she not? It’s perfectly logical. And why shouldn’t the glass slipper she left behind fit perfectly onto her foot the next day, even though the one she was wearing at midnight magically disappeared? It’s perfectly logical.

 

[wanstronian]

I have a friend who claims a rabbit “created itself from nothing.” Can you link me to anything written by people qualified to refute this possibility?

It seems to me that Hawking - regarding contingent things existing ex nihilo - is basically operating at the same level of delusion as my friend.

If a universe can create itself from nothing what is there to stop a rabbit from doing so?

Is it possible to refute either claim, scientifically?

What if Hawking claimed he had a rabbit that “created itself from nothing?” Would the fact that he is a credible scientist be all the proof required to substantiate his claim?

How would anyone set about proving that rabbits cannot create themselves from nothing? The claim is clearly an unprovable and an in-disprovable one.

How would anyone refute this belief that rabbits can “pop” into existence?

Yet, it would seem less likely that the entire universe - as opposed to one measly rabbit - could create itself from NOTHING.

Is Hawking more credible on such matters than my friend?

I realize there are subtle nuances regarding the nature of “nothing” that individuals like Krauss and Stenger capitalize on, but clearly ex nihilo nihil fit is a safe philosophical principle despite what Hawking, Krauss or Stenger contend.

And the only honest alternative then, is to say, “We just don’t know.” So you agree?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s a very specific meaning of the word, “simple.” I think a more appropriate phrase would be “infinitely complex.” And you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate such a claim.

Nobody said the universe “created itself.” But even allowing for that, and for the bold assertion that the Universe couldn’t spontaneously come into existence (despite robust theoretical models and growing experimental evidence to the contrary) and it needed God to do it – where did God come from? Who or what made “him?” Or did “he” make “himself?”

And the theist’s answer to that is always the same (and it’s the same mistake that WLC makes) - that because we know something began to exist, something else must have caused it, and that thing was (again, arbitrarily) God. But with “God,” theists arbitrarily and with no evidence whatsoever, claim that “he” “always existed,” thereby (they think) absolving themselves of the responsibility of defending “his” origin. This is the “Special Pleading” fallacy, and it’s applied to the concept of God, and his supposed attributes, liberally. It’s usually coupled with the “Begging the question” fallacy, in that theists don’t think Special Pleading applies to God “because he’s God.” It’s a fallacious set of arguments that don’t stand up to the barest objective scrutiny.

Obviously, you think you understand the cosmological argument but then go on to raise the same tired and “miss the point” retorts.

You MIGHT benefit from reading “So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument,” but the way you wield the plastic swords of “Special Pleading” and “Begging the Question” it is clear that you might sever a limb if you were to engage with serious philosophical content rather than the pastiche you are spouting above.

Speaking of laughing out loud, the ironical turn of phrase “barest objective scrutiny” is indeed laughable given that the barest objectivity never so much as raised its head.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nobody said the universe “created itself.” But even allowing for that, and for the bold assertion that the Universe couldn’t spontaneously come into existence (despite robust theoretical models and growing experimental evidence to the contrary) …

Despite growing evidence that it is possible to make yellow by mixing red and white paint.

 

[DrTaffy]

Didn’t mean to overlook you Dr. but Charlemaign came to my aid. I expressed myself rather clumsily.

By all means, take all the aid you feel that you need!

So put your " graviton " under the microscope, then you can speak more positively.

‘Graviton’<>‘gravity’

We can measure gravity very easily. I did it myself yesterday in the process of working out how long the duck needed to be in the oven.

Whether or not there is a ‘graviton’ is a different matter, but is not obviously related to the topic of this thread. General relativity does not posit a ‘graviton’, after all!

You are aware that the great Newton speculated that gravity may be nothing more than the power of God.

Newton also speculated that he could turn lead into gold and that he could predict the future based on codes in the Bible. This is why science, at least, rejects the argument from authority. I don’t care who said it, I want to know what his evidence was.

Oh come now, the entire universe is the Effect of God’s action and presence.

Prove it. Centuries of theist philosophers, scientists and creationists have failed to come up with one convincing proof of, or even evidence for, God.

You know Dr. you need to get away from your periodic table for awhile and look into Thomas Aquinas.

And you might want to consider the possibility that your interlocutors are familiar with Aquinas, but just are not impressed. Try reading something from later than the 13th century.

 

[wanstronian]

5000 yrs ago +/- God of Abraham/Moses already claimed he created the universe. There was no physics, knowledge of quantum theory etc etc etc. There was no need for God of the Gaps then.

5000 years ago the universe had already existed for 13.8 billion years or so.

. See above. God said 5000 yrs ago he made it. Science has zilch on who created the universe

False assumption - that somebody made it at all. Science will never know “who” created the universe, unless some evidence appears that “someone” did. This seems unlikely, for nobody existed 13.8 billion years ago.

Science can only measure and hypothesize. It doesn’t know where pre-universe stuff comes from or who made them.

Nope - nor does anybody else.

If some evidence doesn’t support the hypotheses, fake the results or try some fancy maths which has no bearing on reality such as imaginary numbers or perpetual time for randomness to do its magic, which unfortunately at most is a theory.

Yes, science is full of fakery. If only people would replicate the experiments in an attempt to firm up the theory… WAIT A MINUTE!!! THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS!

Theology is the only endeavour that provides “answers” about the world that are entirely made up. That’s why these “answers” haven’t changed in 2,000 years, other than in the light of incontrovertible scientific evidence - when it would be utterly ludicrous to hold on to the superstition when the truth is plain to see.

Some scientists may occasionally fake results, but the beauty of science as a discipline is that it’s self-correcting, and when experiments are repeated and different results arise, then theories are refined or abandoned.

That’s why science has changed the world, while religion has a tatty stall in the grubbiest corner of the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the only honest alternative then, is to say, “We just don’t know.” So you agree?

I know that nothing does not serve to explain anything, so if the alternative is between 1) nothing as an explanation and 2) an immaterial, eternal, non-spatial explanation, then 2) is a no brainer.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then you should say what you mean, not just hope that people infer it.

An awful non sequitur to claim that it’s only real if we can hold one in our hand. You have a very poor understanding of science if you have a worldview such as this.

Not really, for it demands the inclusion of a phenomenon far more complex than seems necessary. Unless you mean that your god is nothing more than the force that we call “gravity” then you are introducing a massive over-complication. Ockham would be turning in his grave.

Incidentally, your conjecture reminds me of this article, theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/, which nicely parodies the ridiculous IDC arguments.

My point was that if you can seriously make claims such as “science has never measured gravity” then it calls into question the reliability of your other claims.

I’ve read his five ways, and yes, I laughed.

Your responses are exactly what I would expect a die hard atheist to make.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

Enough of the sniping. I need some help here.

Ok, the short answer to your question is that noone who actually understands the physics denies that physics can at least potentially provide an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence. So attacking the physics is a waste of time.

At best you can argue that the laws of physics themselves require, or at least imply, the existence of God. But that requires accepting that postulating the existence of an omnipotent, immaterial, perfect, omniscient, trascendental sentient entity who ‘exists outside of time and space’ (yet still cares about what we eat or who we have sex with) is an improvement on just postulating the basic minimalist set of the laws of physics - which get simpler and more elegant all the time.

 

[DrTaffy]

Despite growing evidence that it is possible to make yellow by mixing red and white paint.

That is my problem with Feser: he does not seem able to make a simple point without resorting to personal abuse of people who, whatever he may believe, actually know a great deal about their subjects.

He displays at least as much ignorance of physics as Hawking allegedly displays ignorance of philosophy of science. But still, Feser has to make fun of the disabled guy!

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is my problem with Feser: he does not seem able to make a simple point without resorting to personal abuse of people who, whatever he may believe, actually know a great deal about their subjects.

He displays at least as much ignorance of physics as Hawking allegedly displays ignorance of philosophy of science. But still, Feser has to make fun of the disabled guy!

Now you are playing the pity card.

Besides, the fact people know a great deal about their subjects does not disprove Feser’s point on this particular subject since they are making a foray into philosophical and not scientific territory.

Your post is irrelevant and you know it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s a very specific meaning of the word, “simple.” I think a more appropriate phrase would be “infinitely complex.” And you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate such a claim.

That is the De Fide teaching of the Catholic Church. God does not lie. But Thomas Aquinas gives a philosophical explanation in S.T., Par1, ques 3 and following ( for people with open minds only ).

Nobody said the universe “created itself.”

Oh please! They most certainly have. That is practically all some modern Cosmologists talk about.

But even allowing for that, and for the bold assertion that the Universe couldn’t spontaneously come into existence (despite robust theoretical models and growing experimental evidence to the contrary)

Hardly a bold assertion. It is what the Catholic Church has always taught. It is what Thomas taught, what Augustine taught. And it is only since the mid seventeenth that it has been doubted and that doubt has come from men who hated God.

Do you realize you have just contradicted what you said above, to which I have just responded?

and it needed God to do it – where did God come from? Who or what made “him?” Or did “he” make “himself?”

I thought you understood all there was to know about philosophy? Then you should know that we exist because God exists. He has always existed and is the one necessary being needing no cause, as Thomas Aquinas has explained thoroughly. Oh, I forgot, you have dismissed Thomas as irrelevant. Oh well .

And the theist’s answer to that is always the same (and it’s the same mistake that WLC makes) - that because we know something began to exist, something else must have caused it, and that thing was (again, arbitrarily) God. But with “God,” theists arbitrarily and with no evidence whatsoever, claim that “he” “always existed,” thereby (they think) absolving themselves of the responsibility of defending “his” origin. This is the “Special Pleading” fallacy, and it’s applied to the concept of God, and his supposed attributes, liberally. It’s usually coupled with the “Begging the question” fallacy, in that theists don’t think Special Pleading applies to God “because he’s God.” It’s a fallacious set of arguments that don’t stand up to the barest objective scrutiny.

Of course atheists must say something in answer to iron clad arguments such as those given by Thomas Aquinas. They are homers to the end, lemmings running over the cliff just because their intellets have been blinded. Your resposes don’t bother me at all. You can shout all you want.

But at least you’ve had a go at answering some of my questions, so I thank you for that.

Thank you, I will pray that you actually begin to read Thomas objectivelly and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By all means, take all the aid you feel that you need!

‘Graviton’<>‘gravity’

We can measure gravity very easily. I did it myself yesterday in the process of working out how long the duck needed to be in the oven.

Whether or not there is a ‘graviton’ is a different matter, but is not obviously related to the topic of this thread. General relativity does not posit a ‘graviton’, after all!

Newton also speculated that he could turn lead into gold and that he could predict the future based on codes in the Bible. This is why science, at least, rejects the argument from authority. I don’t care who said it, I want to know what his evidence was.

Prove it. Centuries of theist philosophers, scientists and creationists have failed to come up with one convincing proof of, or even evidence for, God.

And you might want to consider the possibility that your interlocutors are familiar with Aquinas, but just are not impressed. Try reading something from later than the 13th century.

I would like to answer you specifically but no longer have the time, I have othe obligations for the moment. Of course I disagree completely to your obviously biased analysis. You are welcome to go back and read my other posts for the past few days here and on other threads and even further back. I invite others who disagee to do the same.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Theology is the only endeavour that provides “answers” about the world that are entirely made up. That’s why these “answers” haven’t changed in 2,000 years, other than in the light of incontrovertible scientific evidence - when it would be utterly ludicrous to hold on to the superstition when the truth is plain to see.

Was this answer about the world made up?

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some scientists may occasionally fake results, but the beauty of science as a discipline is that it’s self-correcting, and when experiments are repeated and different results arise, then theories are refined or abandoned.

That’s why science has changed the world, while religion has a tatty stall in the grubbiest corner of the marketplace of ideas.

Science good, religion bad!