KNOWing God

[warpspeedpetey]

Was that the sound of your credibility hitting the floor I just heard? Isn’t it unreasonable
to accept on 11% of the definition, because it suits your purpose?
Isn’t it logical to accept the 89% substantiation of YOUR source. Actually, the theistic
definition, it is gonna happen. QUOTE]

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The context of the title denotes that they have proof.
Proof = faith is a circular argument.
I chose the definition that would get you to provide proof of this claim.
Do you have any proof of the existence of God? Proof is by faith.

You said: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. “

I can show you that UV light exists even though I cannot see it…can you show me God? How do you KNOW this?

the same way science works, evidence and reason.

you show us UV through logical examination of its effect

same thing with G-d, read Aquinas

 

[Bear_Claw]

the same way science works, evidence and reason.

you show us UV through logical examination of its effect

same thing with G-d, read Aquinas

It’s all based on deductions from previously unverified and unprovable facts. It’s definately not the same thing, and if you want to keep saying that, I’ll challenge you to prove that Aquinas’ reasoningg is based in provable fact.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Isn’t it logical to accept the 89% substantiation of YOUR source. Actually, the theistic
definition, it is gonna happen. Am I to presume that you own this web site because you can determine who can and cannot participate?
It seems that theists address the issues as they are presented, the secular community you represent, well…

Actually, no, since the definition given is very broad and all aspects of the definition must be covered.

I chose the definition that would fit with the title line of the OP.

To assume that the rest of the definitions apply to Theism is incorrect. The OP claims that there is knowledge of God, verifiable knowledge about his existence. I require proof of that…proof that is not called faith, because that is a circular argument that will go on forever.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s all based on deductions from previously unverified and unprovable facts. It’s definately not the same thing, and if you want to keep saying that, I’ll challenge you to prove that Aquinas’ reasoningg is based in provable fact.

not a problem, first cause is what i know. take your shot

 

[Bear_Claw]

not a problem, first cause is what i know. take your shot

I don’t even have to, it’s been debunked already.

Read this:
Part 1
Scientific Cosmology

"Since the mid-1960s, scientifically-informed theists have been ecstatic because of Big bang cosmology. Theists believe the best scientific evidence that God exists is the evidence that the universe began to exist in an explosion about fifteen billion years ago. It began in an explosion called the Big Bang. Theists think it obvious that the universe could not have begun to exist uncaused. They argue that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the cause of the universe is God. This theory hinges on the assumption that it is obviously true that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The most recent statement of this theist theory is in William Lane Craig’s 1994 book Reasonable Faith [1]. Now there is a very interesting quote from this book which I will read to you at length because, at the end of this quote, Craig mentions me as one of the perverse atheists who deny the obviousness of the theistic principle. So let me quote to you how Craig states his argument [2]:

The argument may be formulated in three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

He goes on:

The first step is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false. I therefore think it somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it, for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself. And as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less obvious. The old axiom that “out of nothing, nothing comes” remains as obvious today as ever. When I first wrote The Kalam Cosmological Argument, I remarked that I found it an attractive feature of this argument that it allows the atheist as a way of escape: he can always deny the first premiss and assert the universe sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing. I figured that few would take this option, since I believed they would thereby expose themselves as persons interested only in academic refutation of the argument and not in really discovering the truth about the universe. To my surprise, however, atheists seem to be increasingly taking this route. For example, Quentin Smith, commenting that philosophers are too often adversely affected by Heidegger’s dread of “the nothing,” concludes that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing” – a nice ending to a sort of Gettysburg address of atheism, perhaps. [3]

I’m going to criticize this argument from scientific cosmology which is the most popular argument that scientifically-informed theists and philosophers are now using to argue that God exists.

Let’s consider the premise of the argument. The premise is that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It’s not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it’s false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I’ve had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. Therefore there’s no reason to think it’s true. It is either false or it has the status of a statement we do not know if it’s true or false. At the very least, it is clear that we do not know that it is true.

Now suppose the theist retreats to a weaker version of this principle. Suppose the theist says that a weaker version of this principle is, “whatever has a beginning to its existence has a cause.” Now this does not say that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause; it allows that it is possible that some things begin to exist without a cause. So we don’t need to consider it as a self-evident, necessary truth. Rather, we can consider it to be an empirical generalization based on observation, according to the theists. But there is a decisive problem with this line of thinking. There’s absolutely no evidence that it is true. All of the observations we have are of changes in things – of something changing from one state to another. Things move, come to a rest, get larger, get smaller, combine with other things, divide in half, and so on. But we have no observation of things coming into existence. For example, we have no observations of people coming into existence. Here again, you merely have a change of things. An egg cell and a sperm cell change their state by combining together. The combination divides, enlarges, and eventually evolves into an adult human being. Therefore I conclude that we have no evidence at all that the empirical version of Craig’s statement, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause,” is true. All of the causes we are aware of are changes in pre-existing materials. In Craig’s and other theist’s causal principle, “cause” means something entirely different: it means creating material from nothingness. It is pure speculation that such a strange sort of causation is even possible, let alone even supported in our observations in our daily lives.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Part 2

But the more important point is this: not only is there no evidence for the theist’s case, there’s evidence against it. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the wave function of the universe. It has been developed in the past ten years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking’s theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high – near to a hundred percent – of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking’s theory is confirmed by observational evidence. This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe – our universe has been expanding ever since – would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking’s theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe. So a scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the universe began without being caused. So if you want to be a rational person and accepts the results of rational inquiry into nature, then we must accept the fact that God did not cause the universe to exist. The universe exists because of this wave-function law.

Now Stephen Hawking’s theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding. Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.

So in conclusion, contemporary scientific cosmology is not only not supported by any theistic theory, it is actually logically inconsistent with theism. So I think that is the strongest scientific argument there is against theism. I think it’s even stronger than Darwin’s theory of evolution."

 

[Bear_Claw]

Sorry to do this guys, but I gotta run, I have to do some work before the day’s end, I’ll be back tomorrow.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t even have to, it’s been debunked already.

first, dont cut and paste other peoples arguments, thats bad form

that said, check this out.

Read this:
Part 1
Scientific Cosmology

 

[Bear_Claw]

I couldn’t resist.

old argument, the rest of the universe relies on causation, without a reason to deny that causation, its not a real argument

I have to make a distinction between started out of nothing (accidental) and causality.

The universe came into existence not accidentally, but through natural means and mechanisms. It only takes one time for the conditions to be perfect for it to start. Not accidental, but nature’s mechanics.

because everything else in the universe requires a cause, thats why.

So you are basing your first cause argument on the first cause argument?

actually we do have that obsservation, its called the big bang.

He said “people”. If you argue that people came directly out of the big bang, then you are arguing for Young Earth Creation, right?

So you are arguing that there is intelligent design behind the big bang and that it wasn’t just that all the elements were present and at some moment, it happened.

Gotta run

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Part 2

But the more important point is this: not only is there no evidence for the theist’s case, there’s evidence against it. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the wave function of the universe. It has been developed in the past ten years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking’s theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high – near to a hundred percent – of coming into existence uncaused.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I couldn’t resist.

I have to make a distinction between started out of nothing (accidental) and causality.

 

[mlchance]

…what does the Church teach about faith?

Start with this ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com…0&q=faith&s=SS and this newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm, please.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Bear_Claw]

OK, I really gotta go now, but…

only with an infinite number of creative acts, unfortunately we only have evidence of the one big bang.

But the conditions may have been almost there millions of times before the event actually happened.

What strikes me about “rational Christians” is that as soon as science can’t explain something they chalk it up to God.

Science doesn’t claim to know all the answers and when they don’t know they say so, studying further and evaluating more. Christians claim to know things they can’t know and then claim it to be God.

It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Start with this ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com…0&q=faith&s=SS and this newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm, please.

– Mark L. Chance.

I KNOW you didn’t just give me two “books” to read on the matter.

Did you site the two websites earlier? Don’t think so. Then, how did you phrase the question earlier? Give me something here, I’m at work yaknow.

And even these first few paragraphs I read talk about “faith in numbers”, and " The grace of faith opens “the eyes of your hearts”" and " Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth"

They are not even quantifying faith equating to knowledge and evidence thereof…They just circularly argue back to “God says this”

You are using Catholic books, by catholic authors to prove catholic abstract teachings…it’s just unreasonable to get into any sort of debate with anyone but a fellow Christian, more likely a fellow Catholic.

 

[mlchance]

I KNOW you didn’t just give me two “books” to read on the matter.

You’re right. I didn’t.

Did you site the two websites earlier? Don’t think so.

Yes, I did. I did a cut-and-paste from that earlier post.

Then, how did you phrase the question earlier? Give me something here, I’m at work yaknow.

Take your time. I’m in no hurry.

You are using Catholic books, by catholic authors to prove catholic abstract teachings…it’s just unreasonable to get into any sort of debate with anyone but a fellow Christian, more likely a fellow Catholic.

I’m not using “Catholic books” to prove anything. Once again, if you’re going to object that the Church’s teaching on faith is unreasonable, it only seems reasonable that you actually address that teaching. This task can’t be accomplished as quickly as a quick cut-and-paste from dictionary.com.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Maranatha33]

mlchance,

Since you quoted Pascal, I thought you might enjoy this. (you may have heard this before.)

Creation vs. evolution:
Creation= Intelligent Designer=all existence is planned.
Evolution=random mutation=innumerable atomic and sub-atomic accidents.
Science is not exclusive to either evolutionists or creationists.

Evolution=presently considered by a perceived (since it can not be determined either way) majority as the truth. This change in perception can be attributed, in large part, to the work of Charles Darwin in the mid 19th century, Albert Einstein in the 20th century, and many other scientists past and present. A main tenet of evolutionists is that science and creationism are incompatible.

Creation=with the exception of ancient Greeks who considered science an intellectual exercise, not a practical application, from around 600 B.C., science originated in the 16th-17th century A.D… A main tenet is that science is a means of identifying the creator.
Here are some examples:

Francis Bacon- considered the father of modern science—said “There are two books on which we should read. One was Scripture, the other the book of nature.”

Johannes Kepler- Celestial Mechanics — said scientists are “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time,-calculus and dynamics— is quoted as saying…”this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all and account of His Dominion He is wont* to be called Lord God.”
And,
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

Other creation believing scientists include:

Louis Pasteur- bacteriology.
Lord Kelvin-energetics
Blaise Pascal-hydrostatics
Charles Babbage-computer science
Lord Joseph Lister-antiseptic surgery
Robert Boyle-chemistry
James Simpson-anesthesiology
Samuel Morse-telegraphy

Belief doctrines for the beginning of all existence:

Creationists believe in the formation of all things by The Almighty God, in 6 literal days.

Evolutionists currently believe that nothing exploded nothing else, nowhere, thus the big bang created all that exists. This belief should be left open to change based on future scientific discoveries.

• From Wikipedia, in the list of commonly misused English words:
  Won’t is a contraction for “will not”, while wont is a rare, slightly archaic word meaning “accustomed” or “inclined to” (as an adjective) or “habit or custom” (as a noun).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK, I really gotta go now, but…

But the conditions may have been almost there millions of times before the event actually happened.

i assume you mean a pre-existing universe where these conditions occur, so where did that one come from?

if you dont mean that let me know what you mean

i think i already pointed that out didn’t i?

What strikes me about “rational Christians” is that as soon as science can’t explain something they chalk it up to God.

when did i do that?

Science doesn’t claim to know all the answers and when they don’t know they say so, studying further and evaluating more. Christians claim to know things they can’t know and then claim it to be God.

when did i do that?

It just doesn’t make sense.

i take that to mean you are dismayed at the ease with which your cut and paste was demolished.

dont feel bad, most of those arguments sound great until one shines the light of rational scepticism on them. then they turn out to have more holes than a …thing with alot of holes in it.

 

[Maranatha33]

The evolution theory regarding the formation of the earth has the same problems as the cellular theory. There is no beginning proposed by darwinists that can be proven, just disproven. Where did the matter come from?

“The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws. The sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed** something to come out of nothing.**…It represents a true miracle.” (I thought the acknowledgement of miracles was exclusively a creationistic belief.)

Paul Davies, physics and evolution, The Edge of infinity 1995.

"The universe burst into something from absolutely zero…nada. As it got bigger it became filled with more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
Discover magazine, April 2002.

"It is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning."
Joseph Silk, Phd. and professor of astronomy, University of Oxford.
The Big Bang, 2001.

"… Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness."
Sten Odenwald, Phd. and chief scientist with Raytheon STX corp. at the Goddard Space Center.
The Astronomy Cafe, 1998.

And these are all evolutionists.

So darwinian evolution has only data that disproves its belief in the creation of the universe and lifeforms, while not being able to factually deny anything in the Creation Theory. I am sure you would agree that only empirical scientific data, should be considered. This leads to the question what is more sensible, to believe in the Book of Genesis that explains all without contradictions, or man made hypothesis that is in direct conflict with itself? Which perspective makes sense?

Now I have a question.

How was the universe created? There are only 3 possible answers:

It created itself
It is eternal
It had a Creator.

 

[nohamaria]

The context of the title denotes that they have proof.
Proof = faith is a circular argument.

I can show you that UV light exists even though I cannot see it…can you show me God? How do you KNOW this?

Thank you for your reply about knowledge.
No , according to human creteria and knowledge , we cannot show you God.
But once someone called Jesus claimed himself to be THE WORD OF GOD
INCARNATED, many didn’t beleive him and they crucify him.
i think that God himself won’t repeat the same task again just to convince you
about his Existance. You are very, very smart person but unfortunately
very very hard beleiver.
However , Be sure you will meet God after death and you will be convinced
By Him Personnaly.
We tried every possible argument to convince you , but we failed.
I will keep you in my prayers,
if this means anything for you.
Nohamaria(OFS member)