What is your favorite proof for God?

[greylorn]

I think your biggest problem is confusing the mathematical definition of singularity as compared to the cosmological definition. The former refers to what you have: an undefinable point of a function. The latter refers to the unknown; we literally don’t know anything about it so we call it a singularity.

You’ve read my words, not connected any dots. I was commenting on the distinction between mathematical and cosmological definitions of singularity. You are the one confusing them.

Politicians and con artists have learned how to use language to trick people. Their technique is called neurolinguistic programming. Misapply a word with a known definition, attach it to another concept entirely, create a redefined concept. B.O’s speechwriters use this trick.

A mathematical singularity, as you point out, is well defined. You’ve invented your definition for a physical singularity.

Look at your own words, “we literally don’t know anything about it so we call it a singularity,” You’ve substituted a defined term for “nothing.” That is intellectual dishonesty, neurolinguistic programming. I dislike people who do that. . .

Why have you inserted “singularity” where, “Duh… I dunno,” belongs? Only to pretend that you know something which you do not? It would not impress people if your description of the beginnings of the universe was an honest, “Wish we knew, and we’re working on it.” Better that you con the rubes with a pretentious and meaningless word, so long as they are dumb enough to believe that it means something, and too intellectually intimidated to ask, “What is a physical singularity, anyhow?”

Is there any “physical singularity” other than the cosmic mircopea? I bet not! The term is meaningless.

“Singularity,” is a universe-precursor word suitable for folks who like to imagine that they are doing something impressive, like astrophysics, which is a job description for astronomer wanna-be’s unwilling to spend long, cold nights in a tube at the secondary focus of an old Cassegrain telescope doing real astronomy.

Let me ask you a few questions: Have you seen earth from a spaceship so as to see that it is indeed round? Have you seen the other planets with your own eyes (and not from a picture in a book or internet)? Have you seen an atom or an electron? I bet your answers to these are: no, no, no and no. Yet you still believe these as truth, much in the same way that I believe in the Big Bang theory. As a Catholic astrophysicist, I maintain that God is the mechanism for which the singularity exploded, but the physical event that occurred is likely to be unknown for a long time (if it can ever be found).

A pretentious jerk would leap from a legitimate guess of what someone has probably not observed, to assuming knowledge about someone’s concepts of things not observed. You have no business making assumptions about my thoughts.

I do not believe that the earth is round. Apparently “astrophysicists” do not have to study spherical geometry anymore (used to be a basic astronomy pre-req). That would explain your use of the term “round,” which is something one obtains from watching the History Channel, instead of the term “oblate spheroid” which is taught in spherical geometry class. Do Catholic Astrophysicists take a simplified course of study which eliminates tough courses?

Regarding atoms and electrons, your question sounds like something one might get from a high school graduate who’d gotten a C+ in his non-calculus-level physics class. If you would care to share the details of your understanding of “atom” or “electron,” I’ll let you know if your concept matches mine, nevermind that technical details are irrelevant to this thread.

If you cannot answer my physics-level question as to what triggered the big bang other than by saying, “God did it,” maybe you ought to get out of astrophysics and into a useful trade, like collecting garbage or digging holes for underground pipes.

To this extent, gravity is also just a theory. If even one scenario arises that disproves it, we cannot use the idea of it. Similarly, quantum mechanics is a mathematical model that works; if something else comes along that does a better job we’ll use that one (there is a model out there, called Bohmian mechanics, that does explain some QM but isn’t as widely used; check its wiki page for some mediocre description).

You’re mixing your terms, which is even worse than mixing metaphors. Gravity is not a theory. It is an observed phenomenon. What does your statement, “If even one scenario arises that disproves it, we cannot use the idea of it,” mean? You write like someone who has read a fourth grade science book, then gotten drunk and awakened believing your dream about being an astrophysicist.

My library (a storeroom containing boxes of good old books) includes David Bohm’s Casualty and Chance in Modern Physics. Bohm left me, not exactly cold, but pretty much turned off. I’m not a fan of the current trend towards mysticism in physics, and blame him for laying the groundwork.

If you want to take the “I’ll believe it when I see it” approach, I would suggest walking out on physics and picking up another science whose axioms are far more provable. Or taking a non-science. (Don’t take these suggestions too seriously, just pointing out a slight flaw in your logic)

I got a lot of mental floundering from you, and some claims to credentials which I do not trust. Is DeVry University offering mail-order astrophysics degrees these days? I seem to have missed the flaw in my logic which you claim to have identified. It was not detailed in your babble. Would you care to remind me?

I do not believe that you have the qualifications to which you pretend.

 

[Thing]

Thanks for the insights. I’d totally forgotten my first grade catechism classes.

You’re welcome! Its the simple things that count. Too bad people grow up and become smartarses, just far too intelligent for simpler things.

 

[vjtorley]

Proveit312:

You write:

“I don’t think I’m unreasonable at all; if an amputee prayed and regrew their limb, I’d be quite compelled to reconsider my position.”

Time to reconsider! Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

If you want some more decent miracles, try these sites:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

St. Joseph of Cupertino:
messengersaintanthony.com/messaggero/pagina_articolo.asp?IDX=171IDRX=55

“‘To doubt is understandable,’ Fr. Giulio Berettoni, rector of the Shrine of St. Joseph of Cupertino in Osimo tells me ‘but it isn’t justifiable. If we take a serious look at the saint’s life from a historical point of view, then we see that we cannot question his ecstasies. There are numerous witness accounts. They began to be documented in 1628, and this continued until Joseph’s death in 1663, i.e. for 35 years. In certain periods, the phenomenon is recorded to have taken place more than once a day. It has been calculated that Joseph’s ‘ecstatic flights’ took place at least 1,000 to 1,500 times in his lifetime, perhaps even more, and that they were witnessed by thousands of people. They were the phenomenon of the century. They were so sensational and so public that they attracted attention from curious people from all walks of life, Italians and foreigners, believers and unbelievers, simple folk, but also scholars, scientists, priests, bishops and cardinals. They continued to occur in every situation, in whatever church in which the saint prayed or celebrated Mass. It is impossible to doubt such a sensational and public phenomenon which repeated itself over time. It is also worth noting that these events occurred in the seventeenth century, the time of the Inquisition. Amazing events, miracles and healings were labelled magic and the protagonists ended up undergoing a trial by the civil and religious Inquisition. In fact, St. Joseph of Cupertino underwent this very fate because of his ecstasies. But he was subjected to various trials without ever being condemned; final proof that these are sensational events, but also real, extraordinary and concrete facts.’”

See also therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_005.htm

Best wishes,

Vincent Torley

 

[donsnow]

Obama isn’t pro-abortion, but pro-choice. There’s a BIG difference.

Not so. I know, and know of, lots of other people like me who are pro-choice but anti abortion on demand, like you intimate about the President.

And, I claim there are people who claim to be pro-choice, but are against the free choice of a young girl or woman having their baby, like I allege is the President’s actual stance.

You’re either pro or anti abortion, choice has nothing to do with it, it’s about life. There’s no neutral stand on life or death for the unborn. Either you’re for the one and against the other, or you’re for the other and against the one. The president, nor anyone else, cannot be “isn’t for abortion” but allow and bring funding to end, the lives of the unborn. That’s a contradictory expression of speech, when closely examined.

 

[Andy_III]

I don’t have any “beliefs” that deprive me of recognizing a creator. I’ve simply followed the evidence available that overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that there is no creator other than the laws of nature. There’s a big difference between basing a conclusion on all the available evidence and jumping to a conclusion and clinging to it in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Well, I’ve simply followed the evidence available that overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that there is no creator other than that of the laws of nature.

I’ve yet to run into any compelling argument against a creator of the laws of nature (and everything else), although I find new evidence to reaffirm my beliefs all the time. Just saw some new evidence on the history channel the other day.

Be careful when you speak of the laws of nature, because we don’t really know what they are entirely. We just guess and check, like we were taught in grade school. Right now we guess that energy cannot be created or destroyed (by humans or processes of nature that we know of). Newton developed a law of gravity, but it wasn’t the same one as the law of nature that governs the reality we’ve labelled gravity, but it was and is close enough for some of the things we do everyday. The “laws” we get from science are always subject to change based on evidence. To not believe in God (because of science) is to ignore all the evidence in favor of unrealistic and unscientific beliefs.

I have some questions, scientists may be working on these already:

Where did all the energy come from if it was not created? What is the sum total energy of the universe? Why is there that much and not more or less?

The answers can only tell us more about God and His creation.

ProveIt312, I’d like to hear what you believe.

 

[Andy_III]

To say that the universe was created by God, the end, proves nothing. That takes us no closer to understanding anything about its origin, which I feel strongly can be better understood than we do now. To do anything less than search this world and universe for a continually better understanding of it would be a great disservice. When I was religious I found this to be so. We are challenged by God to unlock the universe’s secrets.

I agree with your first statement, that is why the Church encourages us to seek answers by the use of logic, reason, and science.

I no longer believe in the God behind the scenes.

Interesting. What was it then that caused you to cease your belief? You did not seem to mention a cause or reason for your unbelief.

 

[Andy_III]

And of course that light was created BEFORE the stars…uh huh…sure.

Umm, Provelt312, when a bomb explodes, does it create stars to make the light we see? I don’t think so. Stars are not the only source of light. I could imagine God creating a highly compressed point of matter which then instantly exploded because it couldn’t stay that way. I’m not saying I’m sure that’s what happened, but I’m open to the possibility. I think of the Genesis account as a highlight reel of the universe creation with a few “fade to black” transitions in it which the author refered to as days. The author was limited in his ability to comprehend what was shown to him and was affected by his beliefs at the time.

Dismissing the authors as ignorant sheperds and attacking individuals in the Church does not make your point. These types of arguments are designed purely to distract from a weak case. If that was not your intention, please refrain from arguing that way.

 

[Andy_III]

First, science, art and literature were crippled by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages, and any progress has come IN SPITE of religion, not because of it.

What is the evidence for this belief of yours? I have read much the opposite.

 

[jdwood983]

Why have you inserted “singularity” where, “Duh… I dunno,” belongs? Only to pretend that you know something which you do not? It would not impress people if your description of the beginnings of the universe was an honest, “Wish we knew, and we’re working on it.” Better that you con the rubes with a pretentious and meaningless word, so long as they are dumb enough to believe that it means something, and too intellectually intimidated to ask, “What is a physical singularity, anyhow?”

Is there any “physical singularity” other than the cosmic mircopea? I bet not! The term is meaningless.

In astrophysics, there are two other physical singularities (really one known and one speculated) other than the big bang: black holes and white holes. The latter is more or less the reverse of a black hole, but a little more than just that. So depending on what physical singularity a person is discussing, there are a couple answers to that question.
In fact, you would ultimately lose your bet. Outside of cosmology, there are physical singularities in phase transitions and many within nonlinear dynamics (chaos theory)–there may be more, these are the two that I know of through courses.

“Singularity,” is a universe-precursor word suitable for folks who like to imagine that they are doing something impressive, like astrophysics, which is a job description for astronomer wanna-be’s unwilling to spend long, cold nights in a tube at the secondary focus of an old Cassegrain telescope doing real astronomy.

Hmm, your description of an astronomer is a little off. Most astronomers that I know actually use remote systems: they’re a few thousand miles away from the actual telescope. I have known a few who actually have gone to the telescope, but most modern astronomers use their computer to connect to the computer that operates the telescope. Thus, most astronomers don’t spend their nights being cold or in a tube.
Even still, astrophysicists aren’t wanna-be astronomers, more often than not they’re the same. An astrophysicist is more generally a theoretical astronomer (though this isn’t always necessarily true, it is a more general definition).

A pretentious jerk would leap from a legitimate guess of what someone has probably not observed, to assuming knowledge about someone’s concepts of things not observed. You have no business making assumptions about my thoughts.

No, not a pretentious jerk. Someone willing to join in a philosophical argument. You disagree with the big bang because you don’t believe in a physical singularity. I pointed out to you that there are probably other things you have not seen but believe. Why, then, do you believe in those things and not the other, is the question I intended to provoke.

I do not believe that the earth is round. Apparently “astrophysicists” do not have to study spherical geometry anymore (used to be a basic astronomy pre-req). That would explain your use of the term “round,” which is something one obtains from watching the History Channel, instead of the term “oblate spheroid” which is taught in spherical geometry class. Do Catholic Astrophysicists take a simplified course of study which eliminates tough courses?

As per dictionary.com: round can mean circular, but also spherical or globular, as well as having a circular cross section (such as a cylinder). So yes, the earth is round. It is more specifically an oblate spheroid, but for a forum such as this, I didn’t feel the need to get into specifics. You want to play semantics, that is fine. I don’t. I gave a sufficient description of our planet, and you attack a particular choice of a correct word and use insults. That is awfully kind of you.

Regarding atoms and electrons, your question sounds like something one might get from a high school graduate who’d gotten a C+ in his non-calculus-level physics class. If you would care to share the details of your understanding of “atom” or “electron,” I’ll let you know if your concept matches mine, nevermind that technical details are irrelevant to this thread.

I am curious about what you think an atom and and electron are. I use the proper definitions of both: an atom is the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of that element and is made up of protons, neutrons (which constitute its core) and electrons. An electron is a subatomic particle with a negative charge and weighs ~1/1000 of that of a proton.
Either way, the fact still remains that you are likely to have not seen either of these particles, but you still believe in their existence.

continued…

 

[jdwood983]

You’re mixing your terms, which is even worse than mixing metaphors. Gravity is not a theory. It is an observed phenomenon. What does your statement, “If even one scenario arises that disproves it, we cannot use the idea of it,” mean? You write like someone who has read a fourth grade science book, then gotten drunk and awakened believing your dream about being an astrophysicist.

Gravity is actually both an observed phenomenon and a theory.
Perhaps my statement was not as clear as I first thought. As with any theory (or hypothesis), you want to test it as best as you can to prove that it works. If you come up with a theory that can be disproved, your theory is not true and you must come up with a new one that accounts for the bit that was disproved. With gravity (in the GR sense), there are a few things that need accounting for that are currently unexplained–however, it is likely that we just don’t understand these things yet but that they do follow GR. (In case you’re wanting some more information: extra fast stars and the Pioneer anomaly are two cases of unexplained events that don’t follow conventionally understood gravity).

My library (a storeroom containing boxes of good old books) includes David Bohm’s Casualty and Chance in Modern Physics. Bohm left me, not exactly cold, but pretty much turned off. I’m not a fan of the current trend towards mysticism in physics, and blame him for laying the groundwork.

Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by the “mysticism in physics”, the mysticism existed long before Bohm came along in the 50’s. Pretty much the early QM founders (Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc) were the ones who introduced the mystic aspects of physics by introducing the “strangeness” of single particle theories because it diverged so much from classical theories–note that strangeness here does not refer to different flavours of quarks, but to the more literal “not of the ordinary” definition.

I got a lot of mental floundering from you, and some claims to credentials which I do not trust. Is DeVry University offering mail-order astrophysics degrees these days? I seem to have missed the flaw in my logic which you claim to have identified. It was not detailed in your babble. Would you care to remind me?

My ability to describe has never been great, so I often find I am needing to restate things and identify things that I didn’t identify beforehand. I pointed out in my previous post what your flaw is: there are things (in physics) that you have not seen but believe; why, then, do you believe in those things and not others that you also have not seen? (ie. you believe in particles, but not a single particle beginning in the big bang and seeing either is a very unlikely scenario.)

I do not believe that you have the qualifications to which you pretend.

You may believe what you want, but I am not lying when I say I am an astrophysicist. If it makes you feel better, I don’t believe much of what comes from you, given your illogical belief system.

 

[Athanasiy]

a few proves :
Holy Scripture !..
Catholic Cathechism !..
C.S.Lewis !..
Dostoevskiy !..

Female beauty !
I am very susceptible to woman’s beauty !
Woman’s beauty its a preacher as well.
The preacher which points at source and originator of all beauty !

 

[older_mom]

In religion class I remember being told we can find God in Scripture, in Nature and in People. My favorite place to find God is in people. We are the Body of Christ and He lives in the world through the people with whom we interact. When we ask God for something and He gives it to us He usually delivers in one way or another through people. God gives us what we need and delivers it through people. God is alive and well in the world today if we look for Him. God lives in each one of us and in each person with whom we come in contact. God is goodness and love. Despite what the media tells us there are more ordinary good people in the world minding their own business and living the best way they know how than not. A smile, word of encouragement, guidance, help, love, you name it and it came from God and He delivered it through a person, a part of His Mystical Body

 

[edrothacker]

The peace of God knowing I will be spending eternity with my Savior!
Ed Rothacker - author
“Keys to Glory – A Catholic’s Search for God”

 

[wbarquez]

Philosophically, the argument from contingency is my favorite. It actually underlies the five ways of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The argument briefly states that the contingency of material reality makes it reasonable to believe in the existence of a necessary entity from which the whole of material reality initially came.

 

[Justy821]

Hi everyone,

For those uncertain about the Ressurection, I found a few things helpful, hopefully you will too, only because Jesus is the only hope most of us have as far as being told how life is and what it’s all about. No other person has known what Christ has known and proved to be true (No one has claimed to be from God, and those who have have proved to be unstable).

(1) Women were just given the right to vote in 1920. They played a far less significant role 2,000 years ago. No man living 2,000 years ago would willingly record that a “sinful” woman was the first to see the risen Christ unless it was the truth. If the men who wrote the new testament were going to lie at all, that would be the first thing they would have changed. How easy for them would it have been to say “Mark saw Christ first,” or “Luke saw him first.” No, his friend Mary saw him first. Further, they were trying to make their case for Christ - they were trying to show the world the truth at the time; imagine how difficult that would have been for them to admit. My guess is that they were laughed at, at the very least, because women weren’t valued then. But they had to report the truth, whether they were made fun of or killed – they gave us the truth. And now, at a time where it seems more and more difficult to hold on to faith, the truth is revealed: We know now that there shouldn’t be inequality among men and women , even though they are different. Only a high minded person 2,000 years ago would have chosen to reveal himself to a woman after rising from the dead. It makes sense that Christ’s thinking was not like any other living at the time, because he was divine and his mind wasn’t limited to that time. Talk about a man who would have supported women’s rights.

(2) we have ribs - without ribs, we would kill one another by a simple hug (our organs would be ruptured). Seems like a creation by someone who gave us some thought before we were made.

(3) this world started off with trees (for oxygen), land (for vegetation/farming) and water. The only 3 things we need to sustain human life here.

(4) Jesus’ law leads to world peace, which is why it is nearly impossible to follow and we constantly fail at it, even those of us who do make efforts to try to live the way he taught. Ever try loving your enemy when they sit there provoking you to argue with them? I can tell you that I have, and I’m stlll not at a point where I’m able to. yes, “turn the other cheek” seems “weak,” but when it’s coming from a Creator, a heavenly Father, who loves every single person on this planet, whether they hate him or not, whether htey know him or not, or whether they murder or not… that makes a lot of sense. He doesn’t one one of his children to hit the other when someone gets her angry… because God cares about that person who might get hit. So he tells us “turn the other cheek instead, don’t spread hate among my children , and don’t hurt my other children.”

(5) we have laws we have to follow in society, and sometimes they ask us to control the free will we have - drinking and driving, for example. some of us might see that as a burden and think “hey, i can drive while i’m druink… why can’t i do it?” well, because the answer it clear: very likely, we might kill somebody. But the results of not following God’s law don’t hit us in the face as hard as a drinking and driving law does; God’s law, being that He is God, requires us to use our minds a bit more. If God wants to spread peace among every single person on this earth - approximately 6 billion people - what would he have had to tell us to do? How about the one most of us have a problem with: no pre-marital sex. Okay, well if none of us ever had pre-marital sex, none of us would be subject to getting pregnant when we really don’t want to have a child, we would have no STD’s, we would have no broken hearts, or drama, or arguments, or fighting, and let’s face it, no murder.

Yes, God gives us free will, but he also gives us the perfect law so that we can live in peace among one another.

Not to mention the fact that before columbus told us the earth was round, it was already in the bible for us… but we didn’t listen. and that we can never count the stars in the sky. astronomers for a long time thought we could, and only recently we learned it is truly impossible to do. again, this was already given to us.

Only a creator knows his creation that well. The chances of there not being a creator considering all of this is impossible. And it’s a good thing this God is one of love… and he truly does make the most sense. We have so much to rejoice for, and nothing to defend. When you’re given a gift, you shouldn’t fit it and prove it wrong when you can’t. We should all accept it and be glad it’s being given to us.

Sincerely, your friend in Christ,
Justina

 

[Monica4316]

the greatest proof of God is in knowing and loving Him.

“we believe in what we do not see, and the reward of our faith is to see and enjoy what we believe” St Augustine

 

[grace_singh]

Just wondering what is your favorite proof for god and why?

the death and resurrection of Christ! because He lives, we will live, too. Christ is God in history, God made man, and God made personal for our sake’s. humble, loving, gracious, and still almighty, just, and holy.

 

[John_Pope]

Proof is a result of one or more of the 5 senses being able to apprehend. God cannot be apprehended by any one of these senses therefore there is no “proof” of God, yet there is very strong circumstantial “evidence” of God’s existence.
If anyone tries to prove God’s existence by means of any of the 5 senses, they are wasting their time. The 5 senses define the world around us. God is NOT definable, therefore, God cannot be proved. God is infinite and undefinable. The only means be which God reveals himself is through faith.
Once God has revealed himself to a person, words such as “evidence” and “proof” become obsolete. But to accommodate those without faith, my favorite evidences for the existence of God are the few mishaps that occur in nature:
All elements and compounds can exist as either gas, liquid, or solid with their relative density increasing from gas to solid. The only exception to this is water, with its greater density at 4 degrees centigrade (prior to its solid state).
Another mishap is the “blind spot” of the human eye.
From the perspective of a pure evolutionist, these so-called mishaps would be eventually self-corrected in time…unless they are not mishaps at all, but rather predetermined characteristics. Predetermined by what?..God? Yes, God!

 

[Lampo]

Argument from desire. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

link

 

[Lampo]

Atheists are the only things in nature that are endowed with a disbelief in God.