My proof for God. Critiques please

[wheels10]

Witnesses require verifiable factual knowledge, not second hand, third or fourth hand beliefs…

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

1. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

 

[wheels10]

Unfortunately, that choice is a luxury that I do not have.

Well then your choice is not to listen. That in itself is a choice.

Normally one will listen to those that they Trust and Love. If you Trust and Love the one that created you [God], you will listen and hear His voice.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well then your choice is not to listen. That in itself is a choice.

Normally one will listen to those that they Trust and Love. If you Trust and Love the one that created you [God], you will listen and hear His voice.

Science is my path. There is no choice. It’s who I am.

 

[momor]

In the UK, you could never use philosophy to convict someone of murder, and quite honestly if I lived in the USA, that is something I would be wearing as a badge of shame.

Juries in the UK never use philosophy e.g., logic and reason??? Badge of shame??? Do you just post things without thinking them through in order to disagree?

If all we needed was mathematical precision we could feed the facts into a computer and wait for it to spit out a verdict.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Juries in the UK never use philosophy e.g., logic and reason??? Badge of shame??? Do you just post things without thinking them through in order to disagree?

If all we needed was mathematical precision we could feed the facts into a computer and wait for it to spit out a verdict.

To be convicted in the UK, there needs to be hard evidence against you… Logic and reason are all very well and good, but in the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty by legally admissable evidence.

 

[coolduude]

I don’t see why you spend so much time defending abstract arguments like actual infinities. wouldn’t it be easier to say; "it has been empirically established that our universe began some 13.5 billion years ago…just a thought.

Well it has been pretty much established empirically that the universe had a beginning. But the conclusion is only as good as the data, so they could be wrong (do I think they’re wrong? No. I’m just saying). With logic, you cannot be wrong if you use deductive reasoning the right way. That’s why I’m going after it

 

[momor]

To be convicted in the UK, there needs to be hard evidence against you… Logic and reason are all very well and good, but in the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty by legally admissable evidence.

And please show me where my original post #365 said anything different about the US.
You could also address my point if you want.

 

[Moonstruck888]

And please show me where my original post #365 said anything different about the US.
You could also address my point if you want.

You mean you had one? You said that philosphy could be used to convict people in the USA. I said I felt that convicting people without hard legally admissable evidence is a badge of shame.

 

[momor]

You mean you had one? You said that philosphy could be used to convict people in the USA. I said I felt that convicting people without hard legally admissable evidence is a badge of shame.

You didn’t go back and read it did you? Or maybe you did and still didn’t get it.
No problem. I got better things to do anyway.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You didn’t go back and read it did you? Or maybe you did and still didn’t get it.
No problem. I got better things to do anyway.

Oh I get it. You think that philosophy is some kind of be all and end all… All it is really are a set of verbal rules for describing how people think.

 

[JohnDamian]

Oh I get it. You think that philosophy is some kind of be all and end all… All it is really are a set of verbal rules for describing how people think.

You must be kidding right?

Epistemology & Logic are only two of the main branches of Philosophy, others being Aesthetics, Metaphysics, Ontology, Ethics, Politial Philosophy, Social Philosophy and so forth - which are by no means exclusively “how people think”.

What you are saying is equivalent to me saying The Physical Sciences consist of nothing but Chemistry.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You must be kidding right?

Epistemology & Logic are only two of the main branches of Philosophy, others being Aesthetics, Metaphysics, Ontology, Ethics, Politial Philosophy, Social Philosophy and so forth - which are by no means exclusively “how people think”.

What you are saying is equivalent to me saying The Physical Sciences consist of nothing but Chemistry.

Yes, in that particular instance, I was kidding…

 

[JohnDamian]

Yes, in that particular instance, I was kidding…

I had seen no evidence of your sense of humor; therefore I presumed it did not exist.

 

[greylorn]

He’s denying the existence of OUR God, not A God.

I don’t know why he has his opinions, but from reading his posts he is indeed theistic.

Clear, pointed, and correct. Thank you!

How would you feel about explaining to momor that I never promised evidence, but only that he might understand my opinions by reading my other posts in various threads, as you did? He seems to actually read what you say, after awhile.

Perhaps you could convince him of the value of honest research and conscious reading.

While I’m not real keen on trying to explain things to momor because of his retrograde reading skills, I would not have this problem with you. I will be happy to reply as best I can, in the context of this thread, to any questions you might have. I’ll begin with an explanation of the context of my opinions. If you want elaboration, please ask.

I began my university stint in physics and EE as a devout Catholic who might have become a priest if not for girls, and had never met an atheist. At school I met one very bright young atheist who asked questions that I could only bs around. Got me thinking. In the meantime, along came knowledge of physics, which I interpreted like any other good Catholic as God’s laws. Until thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are profoundly different from all other laws of physics. Then, I only vaguely realized this. Now I’ve made sense of the implications.

Some I’ve mentioned here: the First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created, period. Instead of arguing this, as most CAF posters do, or wrapping words around it, I accepted it as absolutely true and went on to consider its implications.

The obvious is that there is no God, but I’d already seen His touch, watching amoebas divide and checking out the universe at night, so I discarded that option. My alternative was to consider the possibility that the universe itself was the only honest bible, the only bible certain to have been written by its Creator.

From that point I could conclude that the ideas I’d been taught about the properties and motivations of God had been entirely invented by men, and could all be entirely false. This allowed me to see what could be learned about the nature of God by studying all aspects of His magnificent creation.

Before doing so, I only loved a fictional God, an unreal entity invented by man. Now I have an appreciation for the power of this awesome entity— no “love,” which is impossible for me, but no fear either.

I understand why religionists cling to their beliefs in a personal God. The belief that one is loved, by one’s creator yet, fills some holes in the human psyche. However, the filling comes with a tax that I am glad to be rid of.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The obvious is that there is no God, but I’d already seen His touch, watching amoebas divide and checking out the universe at night, so I discarded that option. My alternative was to consider the possibility that the universe itself was the only honest bible, the only bible certain to have been written by its Creator.

So you are in fact the same as any other person of faith on Earth. Despite all your assertions of superiority, your belief comes not from any systematic reason but from a deep seated need to believe.

All watching amoebas dividing proves is that amoebas divide. All watching the sky at night proves is that there are interesting lumps of rock and ice and gas out there.

 

[tonyrey]

I certainly understand that self-motivation cannot occur without the self. I would not pretend to know how self-motivation occurs any more than I would pretend to know how the universe exists. In both cases we are confronted with ultimate aspects of reality.

Moonstruck, I’m thunderstruck! Strength is a virtue not a vice. My words are strong because they are based on irrefutable logic:

If self-motivation does not presuppose a self it is a misnomer. Why is the term “self” used if the self is **not **the source of motivation? If it originates elsewhere then the source must lie elsewhere…

Do you really believe consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making are entirely explained by electrico-chemical activity?

Earnestly.

Suicide bombers believe earnestly but that does not mean they are right. Your earnest belief does not appear to have a sound foundation…

That would really confirm you’re a purposeless robot without the power of self-motivation!

It doesn’t matter whether I would like to believe that the Universe was specifically designed for human beings and that we are the be all and end all of biological life.

You are mistaken on three counts:

1. Theists do not believe the Universe was specifically designed for human beings.
2. Theists do not believe we are the be-all and end-all of biological life.
3. If consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making **are entirely explained by electrico-chemical activity ** it follows inexorably that human beings are purposeless robots without the power of self-motivation.

I prefer to portion my belief to the evidence and not to the folly of human conceit.

It is human conceit to believe human beings are the sole authors of goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

I am saying that freedom of choice cannot exist if all personal activity can be explained solely by impersonal processes. Again the onus is on you to explain how it is possible to choose when all choices are predetermined…

Well, for one thing I am not at all convinced that human beings have free will and for another thing you have not demonstrated that from anything I’ve said it follows that all choices are predetermined.

1. If we didn’t have free will we couldn’t choose what to think and our thoughts would be unreliable. You know how often instincts lead people astray. Our thoughts would be in the same category…
   2.You have said all our choices are due to electrico-chemical activity - which is obviously predetermined…

Until someone can demonstrate that, I shall keep an open mind.

I fear that is impossible if you don’t have free will! Your mind is firmly closed whether you like it or not.

You said you are inside your cranium - which implies you have a physical location. If everything is not composed of matter what else do you think exists?

I don’t know, but I’m sure you’re about to tell me, and I’m sure it will be based on the most latitudinarian of wild surmise.

Why are you sure I am about to tell you what you think exists? Do you regard me as a mind-reader? Alas, I haven’t yet attained that level… Anyway the simple fact remains that you are unwilling to face the logical consequences of materialism when confronted with its implications…

Emergence… is a natural phenomenon, but it is more than the sum of its physical parts.

Emergence is an impressive term but it explains precisely nothing. How and why do natural phenomena become more than the sum of their physical parts? Yet again you have no rational basis for your belief if you don’t know…

How do you know thinking is a physical reaction?

I know that thought occurs in the natural world. In fact, according to Descartes, the only thing we can be sure of is that thought is occurring, is that not true?

Absolutely! That is our starting point. What remains to be ascertained is how it occurs and how it originated.

Foresight involves making educated guesses based on experience. In nature, including in human affairs, the same patterns tend to repeat. This makes the future to some degree predictable. We know in December it will most likely be cold because December tends to be a cold month. I know that tomorrow morning at seven o’clock it is very likely that I’ll be in building 37 at Spirit Areosystems because that is where I work.

You are already taking it for granted that we have a concept of the future. Yet physical systems have no such concept - or of the past for that matter. They are firmly stuck in the here and now. There is no room for the future where electrico-chemical activity is concerned…

As far as the physics behind the emergence of thought goes, then I can’t explain that. However, because it relies on physical apparatus, to wit: the brain, to occur, I think it probable that there is a physical explanation. I would not however make a definitive claim to knowledge on how thought occurs.

There are so many holes in your explanation it amounts to a “science of the gaps” theory!

 

[greylorn]

I realize that. I’m just trying to keep him honest to his claims. After all, he isn’t one to shrink from doing that to others. I would think he’d want the same courtesy.

If you were being internally honest (i.e. true to yourself) you would have thanked Marc for his assistance in helping you to understand something, rather than pretend that you understood it all along. There is considerable personal value in “fessing up.” It relieves excess strain on the brain, which no longer has to track internal untruth.

No one actually cares if you or anyone else makes a mistake. After awhile they notice it if you never admit them, and realize that you cannot be counted on to tell the truth. None of us need that kind of reputation.

I’m certain that if you go back and check the post in which I invited you to study my other postings, you’ll see exactly what I said.

In another post you complained that I just wanted you to read my book. Like I really need to do this much work to net your 50-cent share of my royalties? Please, stop.

I do not want you to buy my book or even to borrow it from someone else and read it. You are not qualified to understand it. Please do not take this personally. If someone else had written the exact same thing 50 years ago and told me to read it, I’d have been lucky to get through the first chapter.

I do not write for the religionist, whether Catholic or Atheist. My ideas are intended for those who feel that there is mind within and behind our universe, but cannot accept the religious stories anymore. The ideas are for those who are willing to seek an objectively definable God in physics and nature, a God-concept powerful enough to challenge Atheism. I write nothing for those who have found a satisfactory personal understanding of God between the pages of a Bible, Kuran, Book of Mormon, or other writings of men.

With luck this will be the last post I need to address to you. Keep to your faith, but please don’t belittle ideas which you’ve not taken the trouble to study. In a phrase— Please, grow up. In the meantime, post to moonstuck. Tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, on opposite sides of a net.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If self-motivation does not presuppose a self it is a misnomer. Why is the term “self” used if the self is **not **the source of motivation? If it originates elsewhere then the source must lie elsewhere…

No argument there. Where we conflict is whether or not that self must be supernatural. I do not see why it must be.

Suicide bombers believe earnestly but that does not mean they are right. Your earnest belief does not appear to have a sound foundation…

I think you might want to take heed of your own reprimand here, since you are the one who is making claims to knowledge while I am hedging my bets.

1. If consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making **are entirely explained by electrico-chemical activity ** it follows inexorably that human beings are purposeless robots without the power of self-motivation.

How does that follow?

It is human conceit to believe human beings are the sole authors of goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

When you put it that way, yes it would be. It seems more likely to me that appreciation of beauty, significance, meaning and so on and so forth are evolved survival traits.

1. If we didn’t have free will we couldn’t choose what to think and our thoughts would be unreliable. You know how often instincts lead people astray. Our thoughts would be in the same category…

Newsflash. We are unreliable. It is only too common for people to have mental health problems and even breakdowns.

2.You have said all our choices are due to electrico-chemical activity - which is obviously predetermined…

That does not mean that our thoughts are predetermined. Genetic mutations are in effect random events in that you can never predict where and when they will happen and with what effect. They also happen according to very specific laws in Chemistry and Physiscs.

Why are you sure I am about to tell you what you think exists? Do you regard me as a mind-reader? Alas, I haven’t yet attained that level… Anyway the simple fact remains that you are unwilling to face the logical consequences of materialism when confronted with its implications…

A mind reader? No. I would say you are a man who pretends to be a lot more certain of things than he actually is, a cynic of sorts. I am quite willing to laugh in the face of the logical consequences of materialism when confronted with them. One experimental test is worth a thousand expert opinions.

Emergence is an impressive term but it explains precisely nothing. How and why do natural phenomena become more than the sum of their physical parts? Yet again you have no rational basis for your belief if you don’t know…

If you perhaps looked it up, or looked up complexity theory?

Absolutely! That is our starting point. What remains to be ascertained is how it occurs and how it originated.

It may not be possible to explain that in the way you appear to need.

You are already taking it for granted that we have a concept of the future. Yet physical systems have no such concept - or of the past for that matter. They are firmly stuck in the here and now. There is no room for the future where electrico-chemical activity is concerned…

I can assure you that according to physics we are moving into the future at precisely sixty minutes per hour.

There are so many holes in your explanation it amounts to a “science of the gaps” theory!

I’m not offering a grand unified explanation of everything. There will never be zero gaps. Never.

We can only try to plug the ones we can plug. It seems to me that chipping away at the gaps by investigation is a far more honest approach than just sticking God in them.

 

[wheels10]

Science is my path. There is no choice. It’s who I am.

Then science is your God. Do you believe that a human being has a soul?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Then science is your God. Do you believe that a human being has a soul?

Of course not. To believe in a soul, I would have to believe in the supernatural. Science is an heuristic method. To regard it as a deity would be patently absurd.