Is there really a god?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jason69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But by far the most common theory is the Big Bang theory, it makes much more sense than others. Have you seen the famous paper outlining the various evidences?
 
I did, and I believe I represented its contents fairly in the short description after the link.
 
Last edited:
but they did. They demonstrated the axioms are mathematically valid using a laptop. Context is key here
 
Last edited:
I don’t think I explained myself very well. What I mean is even though you believe in God and the bible, because it is written by man then some of it could contain mistakes. So therefore what you are practicing may not have been God’s will.
 
Which is why I like Aquinas’ argument from Motion. It does not assume the universe had a beginning.

But to the OP’s question, I would definitely look into Aquinas’ argument from motion. He lays it out in his Summa Theologica and expounds on it in more detail in his Summa Contra Gentiles. It can get a bit heavy in the latter work but God is not a light subject. 🙂

If you listen to podcasts, I can give you a short, 30-45 minute podcast description of the Argument from Motion. I have looked into arguments against the argument but none of the contra-arguments have convinced me. So, I choose to believe. 😎
 
Last edited:
no.
I understood.
I believe in the Church and the Bible, as infallible in proclamations.

Likewise my private interpretation of the Bible may be wrong, but the text itself is not. It may be told from human standpoint, but it is not incorrect.
 
I’m reporting what the actual article itself says. It is a near quote.
 
But how does anyone really know it is 100% accurate. Example is Chinese whispers. If you tell a story to one person and that is passed on to millions of people the story will change from beginning to the end.
 
That is something entirely different.
In a society prior to common literacy, the way most had to memorize was to actually memorize it.

Indeed, many of the stories in the Bible seem to be for people who could only hear it to memorize it. That’s why you’ll see many memorization tricks in there. If you’ve ever read the Bible and wondered why it says essentially the same thing multiple times, it’s most likely because this is a method of getting the audience to memorize it. Notice it often makes use of exaggeration or ridiculous comparisons. For instance, a log in one’s eye. A log is huge, and can’t fit in someone’s eye, but it is exaggeration.

Or, for instance, alliteration or rhyming. This may not be as noticeable in translations, however.

A society can pass on accurately a story for I believe 200 years before great changes can be made if it is pre literacy. The general standard is that a story should be written within 2 generations before legend overtakes fact.

But I believe in the Church, so I believe with Faith that the Books of the Bible are not merely factual accounts, but inspired by God in some way
 
Yes that makes good sense. Brings me onto my last question of the night. How does one know what is the correct church to practice your faith as each denomination has different practices?
 
Quite simply a historical check. The Protestant churches broke off of the Catholic Church about 500 years ago.

The Catholic Church is historically traceable to our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Actually, the argument does not contend that a moving object must have a mover. It argues that for a thing to move from potentiality to actuality, there must be a prime “mover” in the here and now that “moves” it from potentiality to actuality. Nothing has to move. But there has to be something that does not have potential and thus cannot change which ends the regress. Something that is pure existence and pure act. That is what we call God.
 
Are you saying then not to go to any church unless it is a catholic one?
 
It is a tough thing: God that cannot be proven empirically or through pure logic. Belief in Him ultimately comes down to Faith. Faith can be informed by facts, but never fully justified by facts. I was given the gift of Faith by being born into the Church. I think it would be hard to start from scratch with belief in God. I would look at a preponderance of the following, knowing that none of these factors alone are sufficient:
  • Does the historical evidence and logic for there being a God seem convincing, even if it is not scientifically provable? Does it make more sense that there is a Creator, or that all of existence is random chance? Random chance doesn’t make much sense to me.
  • How many people in history have believed in God versus not? I figure there has to be some comfort in numbers. I don’t feel like I am smarter than most of the people who ever lived. Why have all those people believed?
  • Does the idea of God seem appealing to you? Do you want there to be a God? I think this is more than an opinion or preference. Your mind is trying to tell you something. Maybe a higher power is trying to tell you something.
  • Then there is Pascal’s Wager. If you are going to bet, bet on God. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you bet against God, you have nothing to gain, but potentially everything to lose.
 
Entwhistler said:
Which is why I like Aquinas’ argument from Motion
Click to expand...
One problem here is that all motion is relative. So although something can appear to be stationary, such as the pen on your desk, it is actually moving millions of miles per second relative to some galaxy out there. Conversely, something which is in motion, is stationary with reference to something else.
 
I cannot see, feel or hear you, yet I believe that you exist.

Why? Evidence of your existence, even if not perceptible to the senses.

Evidence for God?

You exist.

The earth that you are standing on.

The harmony and symmetry of nature.

Love.
 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

Neither in the Old or New Testament do we find any elaborate argumentation devoted to proving that God exists. This truth is rather taken for granted, as being something, for example, that only the fool will deny in his heart [Psalm 13:1 and 52:1]; and argumentation, when resorted to, is directed chiefly against polytheism and idolatry. But in several passages we have a cursory appeal to some phase of the general cosmological argument: v.g. Psalm 18:1 and 93:5 sqq., Isaiah 41:26 sqq.; II Mach., vii, 28, etc.; and in some few others — Wis. xiii, 1-9; Rom., i, 18,20 — the argument is presented in a philosophical way, and men who reason rightly are held to be inexcusable for failing to recognize and worship the one true God, the Author and Ruler of the universe.

These two latter texts merit more than passing attention. Wis., xiii, 1-9 reads:

But all men are vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. Or if they admired their power and effects, let them understand by them that he that made them, is mightier than they: for by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. But then again they are not to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?
 
Last edited:
florin1 said:
I’ve also been told (and it’s true) his argument is not just about movement in space, but change in general.
Click to expand...
Suppose you are given a particular reference frame. Then motion can be thought of as velocity or as change of distance with respect to change in time. However, not all change involves velocity alone. For example, the change of a caterpillar into a butterfly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top