Proof of God

[mosher]

The Big Bang is a perfectly sound explanation for the present creation of the universe. The beginning of which can be attributed to God. To just accept that though is to stop asking questions about the world and universe we live in. Again, a “blindness of faith” in that you believe it to be true, so it must be.
As I mentioned in a previous post, perhaps all the matter and energy in the universe just “Is”. It explodes, creates a universe, crunchs in on itself over time, then another big bang, so on and so forth for infinite. All matter and energy always has been there in one form or another. There was never nothing. For me that is more plausible than a god or God creating everything, because, again anthropomorphosizing God, I’d want to know what He did before the beginning. And if it’s not understandable and outside the human process of thought and imagination, it’s impossible for me to worship it.

There are two serious error here in your thinking that I will first address.

First is your perception of faith. The narrow definition of faith is “to trust on the authority of another.” In this definition nearly all things are a matter of faith to some degree as on some level all things that we know find their source in another and not in the direct investigation or fruits of our own labor. I have never been to France but I have faith that Rand McNally put it on the map because it is there. Faith is not anything more than the natural process of trust based in the authority of an expert.

Second, you continually claim that if God is apart from complete understanding then He cannot be worshiped. This is also a flawed statement in that it is for that very reason that worship is due Him for at least a basic naturalistic level. For God to be outside of reason is not that He is against but rather super-rational being outside of the natural and created order. Even without the revelation given explaining the mode of worship it would still be necessary on, as I said, a natural level.

On the point I made about the Big Bang as a proof of the finality of the world and time and a true beginning thereof I must say that I am sure that based upon your response that you are not familiar with the most recent work that has been done on this topic. From the most recent work of Drs. Mather and Smoot have solidified that there is not only a beginning to all time and space but that it is not a repetition. I suggest that you read their work. While your argument was a probable argument it has been found to not be possible based on the information now present.

However, it is necessary to address all the other proofs as a unity as all five proofs are actually a single proof of God’s existence.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

DJ ADAM

*again anthropomorphosizing God, I’d want to know what He did before the beginning. And if it’s not understandable and outside the human process of thought and imagination, it’s impossible for me to worship it.
*
What God did before the creation may well be outside the process of thought and imagination. What He did after the creation is all that concerns us. God has revealed much along those lines for those who have open minds and hearts to hear and understand.

Why would you put such a strange condition upon worshiping God … that you must understand the mind of God before the Creation? Where does it get you? Isn’t God by definition entitled to know something we can’t possibly know or understand?

Would you have to know what your parents did before you were born in order to love them?

 

[RyanL]

…With an infinite timescale to produce infinite results, chance will always occur…

Here’s are some problems with this line of thinking:

1. If there has been infinite time prior to us, with infinite results (and combinations and permutations thereof), there was also the possibility that everything ceased to exist. If that possibility exists (which it does), and there has been infinite time for it to happen, it must have happened by now. If that is the case, we should not be. Since we are, the infinite idea must be false.
   1a. To see how many rabbit-hat tricks would have had to have been performed for us to exist in a finite universe, you might check out the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator. Your odds aren’t as good as you might like to think.
2. It’s completely unscientific. The Big Bang would seem to be the origin of space-time; half of this, I might remind you, is the element of TIME. If time has an origin, it’s not infinite. Since science shows us that space-time had a beginning, this idea is scientifically false.
3. There’s no such thing as an actual (material) infinite. This is Euclidean finiteness. Since the universe is not an abstract, the universe (and necessarily space-time) cannot logically be infinite. Therefore, your idea of infinite universe/time is logically false.
4. You have indicated that you hold a scientific minority position of a “bouncing universe”. You might look into the works of Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin; it would require far more faith to believe this than to believe in God.

Back to the drawing board?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[mikew262]

Don’t expect to find emperical proof anytime soon either.

Science is limited by its own definition as to what it can say about the world. It cannot and does not address the supernatural.

However, we can find God through reason. Given the evidence, Revelation etc… men who search for the truth can find God this way. God is very reasonable.

Our Pope has said that we should not abandon reason to material science.

I see science as simply the study of how God does it.

 

[FightingFat]

**31 **Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.
**32 **The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe. As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

**33 **The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.
**34 **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 **35 **Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm

 

[FightingFat]

I see science as simply the study of how God does it.

Absolutely-

**159 **Faith and science: "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."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

 

[VociMike]

Vocimike post#22 asks what could create something from nothing. The only answer in my present understanding to this question is God.
Before everyone shouts “Hallelujah!” that still doesn’t convince me because my first point about what came before the beginning still stands. It may well be the case I’m anthropomorphasising God, but to not do means worshipping something that could never be understood as it’s outside of all present understanding. I don’t understand how my wireless connection to the internet works, but I don’t worship it.

I’d like to talk about “loving” here rather than “worshiping”. Can you love a person without completely understanding them? God has gone to great lengths to “come down to our level,” culminating in uniting for all time His nature with our own. We do not claim that God is not understandable – that would make a mockery of the powers of reason which He has given us. We only claim that He is not fully understandable. A very different matter.

The Big Bang is a perfectly sound explanation for the present creation of the universe. The beginning of which can be attributed to God. To just accept that though is to stop asking questions about the world and universe we live in. Again, a “blindness of faith” in that you believe it to be true, so it must be.
As I mentioned in a previous post, perhaps all the matter and energy in the universe just “Is”. It explodes, creates a universe, crunchs in on itself over time, then another big bang, so on and so forth for infinite. All matter and energy always has been there in one form or another. There was never nothing. For me that is more plausible than a god or God creating everything, because, again anthropomorphasising God, I’d want to know what He did before the beginning. And if it’s not understandable and outside the human process of thought and imagination, it’s impossible for me to worship it.

It sounds as though you are willing to concede any implausible explanation except God. You are willing to believe in an infinity, just not in an infinite God. Furthermore, this infinity has absolutely no evidence to support it; it is just a figment of the human imagination. Compared to the lack of evidence for an infinite cycle of universes, the evidence for God is overwhelming!

 

[VociMike]

I see science as simply the study of how God does it.

Me too. Science is a window into the Mind of the Great Artist. Not only has God created a wonderous universe, but He has given us the ability to see more and more how He did it, for our own delight and advancement.

 

[InLight247]

I’ve been reading and reading and reading and I’ve found nothing on the internet that proves beyond doubt God exists or if He does is even worthy of my worship.
What proof do the people who believe in Him have?
Thanks

If one has an open mind, a humble spirit, a sensitive and receptive heart, the proof is everywhere.

If one choose to believe, all things point to God, and one can actually experience God. All believers do.

If one choose to doubt, then nothing points to God. Even if one sees a miracle in front of his very eyes, he will still not believe.

The proof is everywhere, our Lord Jesus is real and alive.
The choice is yours.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Also Charlie in post#25 says the Bible is the proof of God…
…My understanding of the Bible is that it was Emperor Constantine in 4th century Rome…

Hi DJ Adam,

You’ve missed the point. The Bible is not proof of God. Prophecy is the proof. Do you understand prophecy? I suspect you don’t… (maybe you should re-read my original post.)

But to understand prophecy, you have to accept that the Old Testament was written about a thousand years prior to the time of Christ. If you don’t accept this, then I suspect you don’t have a problem regarding Proof of God, but rather, you have a problem with trusting ancient history.

There is plenty of ancient history to tell us that the Old Testament was written a thousand years prior to Christ, and that the New Testament was written around the time of Christ. Search… and you will find.

 

[frail]

PS - My Coke cans haven’t moved in the time I spent typing this. Perhaps God doesn’t want to show himself to me today…?

I’ve been in your shoes, looking for signs for God to prove Himself. But you know what I realized is that even if something like that happened to me, the first thing I would do is try to explain it away.

 

[Little_Mary]

:bounce:

:banghead:

 

[RobNY]

The meaning of an infinite universe is that it always has been there and always will in one form or another.
It is finite in the number of particles of matter and energy it holds (as something can’t come from nothing, hence my hypothesis that the universe just “Is”), but infinite in the space it can expand in to.
To say that the space the universe can expand into is finite, that requires a barrier where it stops. Whats on the other side at the end of the universe…?

I believe the way you wish to describe the universe might best be put as, “finite but unbounded.” Is that helpful?

Thomas basically says that something can’t come from nothing, be it physical or movement. Therefore God exists.
For me that is no argument for the proof of God.
It’s equally plausable to assume something was always there. If God just “Is”, then why can’t the physical universe and movement within it just “Be there” strething back into infinite? If God can be infinite, why can’t the universe?
Also, taking that argument of Something must create something from nothing, then what created God? Why was God there before the creating of everything? The answer of “Because He’s God” isn’t an answer; if anything it highlights the blindness of faith which I find

I’ll try my best to deal with the second half first.

The problem is that it miscontrues the argument from first cause, as far as I can tell. The principle of the argument from first cause is not that everything needs a cause. There is actually another underlying reason. Let me try to explain.

The foundation is the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have adequate reason to exist. Things which have the complete reason of their being in themselves are self-sufficient, and their own nature is their own explanation. Some may have part of their explanation in things outside of themselves-- this means that some other being is needed to explain them.

If something’s reason for being is found outside of itself, then instead of using the word ‘reason,’ we use the word ‘cause.’ Using cause we indicate that we are not dealing with self-suffficient beings, but with beings that are not self-sufficient, and have a beginning of some kind. Cause, therefore, is a term more restricted than reason. Cause is any positive factor on which something depends for its existence.

God is fundamentally not a being that needs a reason outside of himself, he does not need to be caused. God’s reason for existence is his own nature. Note the important difference in this statement from this statement: God’s cause for existence is himself. The first statement, statement A makes sense. The second statement, statement B, is nonsensical. God cannot be self-causing. Causation is an action, and action requires being. For action to procede being logically (note: I said logically and not temporally) is nonsensical. (Note: there has to be a self-sufficient being).

Can we assume something else was there?

Well, if we are to assume that something else was there, what are we to assume was there? We must assert that a self-sufficient being (and note that I’m using the term “being” loosely: anything that exists is a being, whether it is sentient or not, equally a person and a rock are beings; so, saying there must be a self-sufficient ‘being’ isn’t to say that it must be personal, i.e., this step doesn’t necessarily exclude ‘the universe’ from being self-sufficient) has always been there.

What self-sufficient being that our senses perceive fulfill this requirement? Well, the problem is, we don’t perceive any self-sufficient being. (But since we know there must be a self-sufficient being… that’s how the reasoning works out).

As you asked, why can’t it just be the universe, “stretching back into infinite?” There are a few reasons. The first, which has been pointed out, is that the universe has not always existed. Anything which has not always existed is not a self-sufficient being, and so it can’t be posited as the first cause. The second is, were the universe of infinite time (which is what I assume you are getting at by ‘stretching back into infinite’) then we could never arrive at our point in time. Basically, it would take infinite time to have arrived at the point in time that we are at, but it is impossible to traverse an infinite amount of time. Of course, that doesn’t really apply because the universe does in fact have a beginning.

 

[Blinky]

To believe in God, one needs faith, not miracles.

 

[ribozyme]

To believe in God, one needs faith, not miracles.

It would take a miracle for myself to have faith

 

[Blinky]

Pray for faith. You’ll get your miracle.

 

[Mimi]

This reminds me of a joke I heard Dr. Ray Guarendi tell on his show:

Some scientists were arguing with God that they do so many things now, cure diseases, even create life. So they challenged God to a contest. God reached down for a handful of earth to do it the ‘old fashioned’ way. When the scientists started to do the same, God said, “Oh no! Make your OWN dirt!”

Well it was much funnier when Dr. Ray tells it, but you get the point, doncha?

Mimi

First of all if God exists then a) he created you and gave you life b) he created a heck of a lot of other things as well - the world and everything in it for example.

Given that you’ve never created anything on remotely the same scale in your life, this fact alone makes him worthy of worship as a being far greater and more powerful than you.

snip QUOTE]

 

[planten]

We have proof that God exists, because Prophecy is His signature on the Scriptures/Bible. Who else could inspire the Bible, if not somebody who is above time. God is the creator of time. He inspired people to write things in the Old Testament that were realised in the New Testament.

(You have to keep in mind that the Old Testament was written hundreds, if not thousands of years before the New Testament.)

Prophecy is like somebody predicting the future. But it is more than that; it is writing down the specifics of an event, before the event actually occurred.

(A prediction is when you tell your friends that your football team is going to win this weekend. But a prohecy is actually telling your friends the details of that game… before the game is actually played.)

Arguably, the most important prophecy given to us was the prediction that Jesus will come to earth to save us. There are hundreds of biblical predictions concerning the birth, life, and death of Jesus in the Old Testament and which have been realised and confirmed in the New Testament. Below are just a few of them which you may find familiar…

1. In the Old Testament, we read about
   a virgin who will become pregnant and it will be a sign that God is with us. (Isaiah 7:14)
   In the New Testament, we are told that
   the Virgin Mary, will give birth to Jesus, the Son of the Most High God. (Luke 1:31-32)
2. In the Old Testament, we read about
   a star that will annouce the birth of a king. (Numbers 24:17)
   In the New Testament, we are told that
   wise men followed the star that led them to baby Jesus. (Matthew 2:2)
3. In the Old Testament, we read about
   one being betrayed by a close friend for 30 silver coins. (Psalms 41:9 and Zechariah 11:9,12)
   In the New Testament, we are told that
   Jesus was betrayed by one of His apostles, Judas, for 30 silver coins. (Matthew 26:14-15 and Matthew 27:4)
4. In the Old Testament, we read about
   the cry and anguish of a man and the pains of his hands and feet. (Psalms 22:16)
   In the New Testament, we are told that
   Jesus had his hands pierced by nails. (John 20:25)
5. In the Old Testament, we read about
   God’s servant who is being harshly treated and yet still praying that they might be forgiven. (Isaiah 53:12)
   In the New Testament, we are told that
   Jesus prays for forgiveness to those who are killing Him. (Luke 23:34)
6. In the Old Testament, we read about
   a devoted servant who would bear the punishment of many. (Isaiah 53:11)
   In the New Testament, we are told that
   Jesus died for our sins. (1 Corinthians 15:3)
7. In the Old Testament, we read about
   a wise man who is saved from the power of death. (Psalms 49:15)
   In the New Testament, we are told that
   Jesus rises from the dead. (Luke 24:34)

Prophecy is God’s signature on the scriptures. So christians can rejoice, because God came to earth to save us. And we knew He would… We knew a thousand years before it happened.

Dear C Z, I have numbered the lines of your posts from 1 to 7. These are your prophesies, total 7. Muhammad did not deny all of the above, i.e. your list of prophesies. Whether these are prophesies or not, we will discuss it later.

Until then please understand and explain to me where and how did Muhammad deny the prophesy number 1,2,3,4,5,6. When you will show me where did Muhammad deny your six selected ideas then I will speak to you about the number seven.

Muhammad never denied the prophesies as you have mentioned. There is no such thing. He passes the test of being the greatest and the best prophet. But let him be a small prophet please. Just admit that he is a prophet of God. That will show whether you are small or great… Thnks for reminding us about your old posts.

 

[BlaineTog]

I’ve been reading and reading and reading and I’ve found nothing on the internet that proves beyond doubt God exists or if He does is even worthy of my worship.
What proof do the people who believe in Him have?

What, seriously?

Go read some Kierkegaard and then get back to me.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Dear C Z, I have numbered the lines of your posts from 1 to 7. These are your prophesies, total 7. Muhammad did not deny all of the above, i.e. your list of prophesies. Whether these are prophesies or not, we will discuss it later.

Until then please understand and explain to me where and how did Muhammad deny the prophesy number 1,2,3,4,5,6. When you will show me where did Muhammad deny your six selected ideas then I will speak to you about the number seven.

Muhammad never denied the prophesies as you have mentioned. There is no such thing. He passes the test of being the greatest and the best prophet. But let him be a small prophet please. Just admit that he is a prophet of God. That will show whether you are small or great… Thnks for reminding us about your old posts.

Hello planten,

In the context of this thread, I really have no interest to accept your challenge.

But I am grateful that you are willing to accept 6 of the points listed. Most other muslims would have just dismissed them by saying the bible is corrupt. Thank you.