My proof for God. Critiques please

[coolduude]

Gas particles were put in motion at the moment of creation and have been moving since. It’s not like they were static at one point then began moving on their own (like you propose). Also, gas particles and the universe are two totally different things that cannot (IMHO) be compared in that way.

 

[buffalo]

God isn’t necessary, that’s my point. You don’t know what, if anything, was the first mover, so what-ever it is, if anything, you call God?

From the Catechism:

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’) The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

You could call Him the FSM, but I am not sure it would stick.

 

[Moonstruck888]

1. 
   *] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
   *] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
   *] God’s knowledge is subsistent
   *] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
   *] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
   *] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
   *] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
   *] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
   *] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
   *] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
   *] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
   *] God is almighty. (De fide.)
   *] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
   *] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)

1. 
   Right. You’ve proven that you can string a sentence together that contains the word God along with the verb etre, followed by an adjective.
   
   That’s all you’ve proven.

 

[buffalo]

Right. You’ve proven that you can string a sentence together that contains the word God along with the verb etre, followed by an adjective.

That’s all you’ve proven.

You claimed we do not know anything about God. I showed you the Church does.

 

[Zatzat]

You claimed we do not know anything about God. I showed you the Church does.

If God is real, I’m confident that she is nothing like the God of Abraham. The Church knows nor more about this invisible God that lives in an invisible Kingdom than I do.

 

[buffalo]

If God is real, I’m confident that she is nothing like the God of Abraham. The Church knows nor more about this invisible God that lives in an invisible Kingdom than I do.

Willing to share?

 

[JohnAlexander]

Before I show my proof for God, I just want to say that I’m building on the Kalam argument. This isn’t an original argument, just my expansion on a pre-existent one.

1. The past is finite
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
3. Something had to create the universe
4. That something is God

Therefore,
5) God exists.

!

Your proof is very weak and does not work.

1. The past is finite.
   Where is the proof for this? Although current scientific theory has our universe beginning at the big bang it does not follow that there was nothing before the big bang. It is quite possible that there was another universe that existed, expanded, contracted then went through the whole cycle again and again.
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
   It may be true for our universe but again it is possible for other universes to have existed prior to ours. It is of course impossible to know anything about prior universes. Scientifically speaking it makes no sense to speculate about prior universes because there is no way to test for them but philosophically you can conjecture that they existed.
3. Something had to create the universe.
   If the universe is just a part of a never ending series of universes then why does it need to be created?

Since the first three points are not proven then any conclusions drawn from those suppositions are not proven.

I think before anyone tries to prove the existence of God they must define just what they mean by the word “proof”.

If you mean “convince” then your arguments do not have to make any sense as long as they work. A very good proof in this sense is love. Children who are loved genuinely by their parents are very rarely skeptical about the existence of God. In this sense love proves to them that God exists.

If you are looking for a mathematical proof or a scientific proof then you will have to do much better than your proof.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Right. You’ve proven that you can string a sentence together that contains the word God along with the verb etre, followed by an adjective.

That’s all you’ve proven.

HA! I see how honest you really are now. If somebody gives you a definition that doesn’t suit your critique, you claim that its just a string of words.

 

[coolduude]

Ok I reformulated it. Let me know how I did this time

1. The past is finite (see post #1 for the backup)
2. The universe, therefore, is created. It is a contingent being.
3. The universe was created by God.
4. Therefore, God exists.

---

In my original post, I couldn’t reinforce the 3rd premise. So here’s the proof for it:
“A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.”

Now before everyone takes apart my argument, let me just say that all I’m trying to prove here is the existence of a neccesary being, not the Christian God. That can be worked out later

 

[coolduude]

bump

 

[JohnDamian]

Now before everyone takes apart my argument, let me just say that all I’m trying to prove here is the existence of a neccesary being, not the Christian God. That can be worked out later

I am afraid I do not see what you are trying to do… This appears just a rehash of the standard argument for contingency* - I cannot see any difference other than this is a gross simplification.

What’s new here?

 

[coolduude]

I am afraid I do not see what you are trying to do… This appears just a rehash of the standard argument for contingency* - I cannot see any difference other than this is a gross simplification.

What’s new here?

Well you’re correct- it’s a reworking of the contingency argument. I figure that by simplyfing (sp) the argument it gets harder to deny it. I mean if the premisies are very simple, it gets much harder to deny each of the premises. I hope that makes sense!

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Your proof is very weak and does not work.

1. The past is finite.
   Where is the proof for this? Although current scientific theory has our universe beginning at the big bang it does not follow that there was nothing before the big bang. It is quite possible that there was another universe that existed, expanded, contracted then went through the whole cycle again and again.

If that’s the case, then both arguments are drawing from an argument of silence and can both be considered equally valid.

1. There was a point when the universe did not exist
   It may be true for our universe but again it is possible for other universes to have existed prior to ours. It is of course impossible to know anything about prior universes. Scientifically speaking it makes no sense to speculate about prior universes because there is no way to test for them but philosophically you can conjecture that they existed.

This begs the question if those prior universe had a beginning as well or didn’t exist.

1. Something had to create the universe.
   If the universe is just a part of a never ending series of universes then why does it need to be created?

If it is a part of universe of a never ending series of universes (or events), then the this universe must be contingent and therefore finite since its existence is contingent on other events. Whether this process continues ad infinitum, it doesn’t change that the universes are intrinsically finite and dependent on previous events, whether they happen for a looooooooooooong time or not.

Since the first three points are not proven then any conclusions drawn from those suppositions are not proven.

Ok.

I think before anyone tries to prove the existence of God they must define just what they mean by the word “proof”.

Agreed.

If you mean “convince” then your arguments do not have to make any sense as long as they work. A very good proof in this sense is love. Children who are loved genuinely by their parents are very rarely skeptical about the existence of God. In this sense love proves to them that God exists.

I doubt that this argument would work with abused children and adults.

If you are looking for a mathematical proof or a scientific proof then you will have to do much better than your proof.

His proof is primary philosophical.

 

[Lazy8]

Is there no end to all of this? Just kidding.

First of all, according to modern physics, time and space are inter-related. According to quantum physics, the universe is finite, as there is a finite amount of particals, even at the sub-atomic level.

There was some discussion about not being able to traverse infinity. In truth, infinity is NOT a number, it is an abstract concept. Furthermore, there are actually different levels of infinity, referred to by thier “cardinality”. For instance, the set of natural numbers has the same cardinality as the set of integers, or even the set of rational numbers (fractions). The proof for such things is based on the idea that one can generate a mapping from one set of numbers to another. So we can have infinite, and discrete. According to quantum mechanics, the universe is finite and discrete. But the set of real numbers, for example, is of an ever higher level of infinity, or cardinality. A consequence of this is that the probability of picking any one number in the real number line between 0 and 1 is zero.

I think of God as infinite (and of the highest cardinality), and of our finite existense as having zero probability, except for Gods decision to deliberately create our universe, and thus us. To God, our finite existense is very small, and thus well within His capacity to comprehend fully. We, on the other hand, are unable to fully comprehend God. God is NOT bound time, dimension, space, or any known laws. As God is the creator of our universe, and our universe is relatively simple to Him, WE are bound by all laws created by HIM.

Theoretical physicist and Catholics have one thing in common. We both realize that we have to accept the concept of mysteries, i.e., there are somethings that we can never know. God does not have such limitations. To say that God is great is an understatement. How great He is is truly beyond our realm of comprehension.

When someone ask me for proof of God, I say look around. God gave us all a good home that we call Earth. From this, It’s now what we make of it. We are suppose to be Gods children - His family. We have to realize this, and start acting like His family. If we did, then there would not be much suffering, or injustice in this world.

God bless.

 

[zamboni]

I accept what I see on this webpage as one proof that all of the OP’s assertions are true.
causeofgood.org/Gold/Eden-FirstTimeEver.html
May God bless you, too.

 

[Cadellin]

1. The past is finite
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist

It is not necessarily true that there was a point in time when the universe did not exist. It is possible for time to have had an infinite duration and that it will continue to have beyond the present. That does not necessarily mean that time did not have a beginning. It simply means that time’s beginning might not exist within time. In other words, it’s origin might lie outside the space-time continuum (as scientists call it).

God exists outside of the space-time continuum, the universe, if you like, and from there he created the universe. He did not create the universe at some point in time, consequently.

How could God have created time of infinite duration? I suppose it’s analogous to the workman that made the desk I am sitting at. The desk is 1500 millimetres long. If its length is expressed in infinitely small points then the desk is infinitely long. There are an infinite number of points to the left of the centre, analogous to the present time, and there are an infinite number of points to the right. Call left and right past and present. If a workman can make a desk of infinite length how much more readily could an infinite God create time of infinite length. (Of course, a workman creating a 59 inch long desk is not the same as God creating an infinite universe, but the analogy is the best I can do at present.)

The notion that time might not have had a beginning is something St. Augustine discussed back in the 4th century. He did not see it as inconsistent with belief that the universe was created by God

 

[Ed_CA]

The word “proof” means different things to different people. An incontrovertible truth is that 2+2=1+3=3+1=4. If one sees and understands counting objects, then 2+2=1+3=3+1=4 is an inescapable conclusion or proof. There are various such proofs in mathematics given the acceptance of certain axioms. One is not free to doubt that 2+2=1+3=3+1 =4 because once the concepts are understood, one has absolute certainty that is a true statement. Another type of proof is whether or not a statement is true within an acceptable degree of certitude, such as expected in a jury trial. The defense and prosecution attorneys try to prove that a person is either innocent or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The various “proofs” of the existence of God” given by various persons throughout the ages cannot be proofs in a mathematical sense. If this were so, then free will is negated and there would be no agnostics or atheists.
However, I do believe beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists and He is not a delusion.

 

[PJM]

=coolduude;6716642]Before I show my proof for God, I just want to say that I’m building on the Kalam argument. This isn’t an original argument, just my expansion on a pre-existent one.

1. The past is finite
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
3. Something had to create the universe
4. That something is God

Therefore,
5) God exists.

---

Premise 1). The past is finite.
Support: a) an actual infinite cannot be created by succesive addition (add one, add one, add one, etc.)
b) the past was created by succesive addition of events. Take, for example, your birth. At one time, it was in the future (i.e., when you were concieved). At the moment of your birth, it was in the present. Today, it’s in the past. So, the past was created by sucessive addition of events
c) Therefore, the past is finite.

Premise 2). There was a point when the universe did not exist.
Support: Based on the above proof (finitude of the past) there was a point when the universe did not exist. This conclusion is only logical once one accepts that the past had a definite beginning, and is therefore not infinite. There was a point when there was no existence then there was. Creation ex nihilo (sp.) if you will.

Premise 3). Something had to create the universe.
Support: Again, this is a logical conclusion once the finitude of the past is accepted. The universe could not have created itself if there was nothing there in the first place. Therefore, there must have been an outside force to create the universe. How am I doing so far?

Premise 4). That something is God.
Support: What else could it be? I know the support is lacking some on this premise, but I really don’t know how to formulate support. Once objections are raised, however, I’ll show better support. I just seem to be at a loss right now.

Premise 5). Therefore, God exists.
Support: After examining (sp.) the other 4 premises, this is a logical conclusion that can be drawn.

So, what are some objections and/or critques for this proof? I’m all ears!

I suspect believers will accept it; non-believers will not.

For some reason that I cannot grasp some folks find it difficult to accept the First Cause" argument?

Perhaps someone will explain it to us?

 

[zamboni]

The various “proofs” of the existence of God” given by various persons throughout the ages cannot be proofs in a mathematical sense. If this were so, then free will is negated and there would be no agnostics or atheists.

I have to disagree because anyone can mathematically prove, for example, that the circumference of a circle is not just equal to pi but also to the sum of Matthew 18:20, which says:

“For where two or (more) come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Even though I believe the Bible works perfectly as a math textbook, my free will is still intact. Just like yours still seems to be working even though you have a different method than math to reach the conclusion — “beyond reasonable doubt” — that God is not a delusion.

I do believe beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists and He is not a delusion.

 

[Ed_CA]

I do not think that one can develop or find a magic bullet of proofs that God exists, if so, there would be no atheists or agnostics. Rather the question should be, can a reasonable thinking person assent that God exists. The assent that God exists still requires a leap of faith. The various plausibility arguments by St Thomas Acquinas, such as the Prime Mover, are good reasons, but still a person can exercise free will and reject the existence of God.
I wish to ask another question. Why do persons like Christopher Dawkins publish books that “God is a Delusion”? In my encounters with atheists and agnostics, the primary reason they give is why does an all Good, all Powerful God permits so much misery in the world. The second reason is that all religions are the cause of hatred and suppression, and that religions exist to promote the wellbeing of the religious leaders. On the second reason, we should remember the saying of G.K. Chesterton who wrote (I am paraphrasing )the problem with Christianity is that is has not been widely and truly practiced.
To address the first objection of why an all Good, all Powerful God permits so much misery in the world, there is natural evil (such as a tornado or flood killing people) and moral evil. Jesus Himself was a victim of moral evil, and He showed us how to combat moral evil.