What is your favorite proof for God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jpk1313
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Greylorn, I love your post. It makes me almost want to believe that God exists again.

I have to ask, though, that if one strays from traditional theism too far, how meaningful is it to use the word “God” (as opposed to, say, “nature”) to describe this aspect of your belief?

I’d also recommend, if you haven’t yet, listening to Freeman Dyson’s statements about God in “Closer to Truth”. You can find the videos online.
At one level I agree with you completely. As a child, I marveled at the little bit of universe I was able to see. As knowledge and understanding increased with formal education, study, conversations and time, my childhood belief in creation has changed into a near certainty that we live in a created universe However, there are some problems…

There is a difference between God and the creator. The two are not necessarily the same entity, in this sense: All your arguments, encompassing the gamut of ideas from esoteric Aquinian logic to a simple love of nature’s beauty, prove in your minds as well as in mine that we live in a created universe. Yet…

Not one of those arguments addresses proof of any specifically defined creator.

Put another way, Who is the God whose existence you’ve proven? What are His properties?

For example, I happen to believe in an entity Who has many of the properties of the Christian God, without Whom you and I would not exist as conscious entities. But I do not believe that the awesome entity in Whom I believe is either omnipotent or omniscient. I trust in His excellent sense and allow Him the option which existence inadvertently grants to all conscious beings, which is to grow and learn and make mistakes.

I do not believe that God has always existed, at least not in the same sense that religions believe this.

More relevant to human-level beliefs, I would never blame God for the creation of the great mass of silly nitwits comprising the human race. Even the secondary-level creators can only be blamed for the construction of human bodies. The human soul is not created. There is no way that an entity or group thereof capable of creating this awesome universe would have deliberately created that sorry, poorly defined, piece of work we call the “soul.”

These brief reviews of my God-concept are seriously different from yours, and from all posters on CAF, but are still within the purview of the general proofs offered on this thread.

My point is that these proofs favor the belief that we live in a created universe, but do not necessarily support beliefs in any specific kind or style of creator.

You’ve proven, mostly to your own satisfaction (just like Darwinists do with their evolution theories— prove to their own satisfaction) that God exists. But you’ve neglected to prove that the particular god in whom you’ve chosen to believe is the creator of the universe, and you’ve made no case whatsoever for your own creation.
 
Reading through the posts one thing stands out above all the fancy arguments presented - BELIEF. " I believe" is the single most used sentiment in this thread. Christians and Jews “believe” in Jehovah as the ultimate mover and shaker, Muslins “believe” it is Allah who did it, Hindus “believe” Brahman is the ‘ultimate impersonal reality underlying everything in the universe’ and throughout the ages different people “believed” in various deities to explain what they could not understand and to placate their fear of death. Atheists “believe” that what is still unknown will eventually be revealed by science as a natural process requiring no intervention by a deity . At present they refer to this supernatural being as “the-god-of-the-gaps”, but until they can plug all the “gaps” the concept of God still exists. No one knows for sure and no one can “prove” one way or the other. “Belief”, then, becomes the only recourse available as an attempt to explain how it all came about and the significance of our existence. Zecharia Stichin interprets the old Summerian texts on Creation to extraterrestrials genetically engineering the primitive humanoids, already here, into *Homo sapiens *but offers no explanation on how these primitive humanoids came to be or on the genesis of the extraterrestrials. The Electric Universe theory does not accept the existence of black holes, dark matter or the concept of the Big Bang… Let’s face it, no one is the wiser with all the theories floating about and the most honest answer one can give to the “proof” of God or no-god is to acknowledge our ignorance and say: “All I know is that I don’t know”. But debating these “beliefs” is most entertaining, so, do carry on.
 
avflf
No one knows for sure and no one can “prove” one way or the other.
Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese.
Facts prove that Jesus of Nazareth is God and public miracles are observed by atheists – post #249.

The proofs for the existence of God can be found at: aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

You can find: Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist, by the late Professor Ralph McInerny: leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

A “believer” should be open to the facts that former atheists have discovered and to the reasons why atheism in unreasonable, otherwise the “belief” is only in a mirage.
Post #196: Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist.
 
Let’s face it, no one is the wiser with all the theories floating about and the most honest answer one can give to the “proof” of God or no-god is to acknowledge our ignorance and say: “All I know is that I don’t know”. But debating these “beliefs” is most entertaining, so, do carry on.
How do you know “All I know is that I don’t know”? You believe you know you don’t know! You believe **you **exist - if by “exist” you mean “exist physically”. It will be most entertaining to see how you proceed from there…
 
How do you know “All I know is that I don’t know”? You believe you know you don’t know! You believe **you **exist - if by “exist” you mean “exist physically”. It will be most entertaining to see how you proceed from there…
I can’t be sure if I really exist physically. Have you ever come across the Holographic Universe view?
 
It sounds like you are trying to shape your image of God to conform to your own experiences and intellectual reasoning. You are in fact creating your perception of God in your own image and likeness. In my experience, the more I rationalize and the more I try to approach the existence of God from a more scientific approach, the further away I got from the truth. Jesus said that we should all have the faith of little children. He mentions this many times the New Testament. You want to accept God on your terms. You are fighting a losing battle my friend. We need to accept God on God’s terms as revealed to us in the wisdom of the ages and the simple truths found in the Holy Bible. You are over-thinking the problem here! Simple faith is the answer!
Simple faith is indeed the answer, for simple people.

God gave mankind a number of bibles. The Christian Bible began with the Torah, the more interesting components of which were cribbed from cultures far more advanced than the Hebrews (Greeks, Babylonians, etc.) who may well have cribbed them from the Chinese.

After the early Church assembled its own proprietary Bible, after discarding quite a few interesting but challenging writings, along came the Koran, Ki’tab’I’quan, Book of Mormon, and California. While these writings were being assembled, people in Asia were writing The Book of the Dead and transcribing the teachings of Buddha. Off in China, Confucius was doing his best to advance principles of human behavior.

What all these writings have in common is that they were written by men, evaluated by men, and adopted by men as sacred or revered teachings. Some men have been so arrogant as to claim that their preferred selections of things written by men, were actually inspired by God. (But not the other folks’ preferred selections.) Other men have chosen to believe that the men who said that some men actually transcribed inspired words of God were making that stuff up too.

Wars have been fought (i.e. many people have been killed, butchered, etc.) over whose men were the men who actually transcribed the actual inspired words of God. People have been tortured and murdered for daring to propose that the men who said that other men transcribed the true words of God, made that up.

In the meantime, there existed another Bible which God has also given man. This is an unusual Bible, for its credibility cannot be questioned by nits like me, or by you. It is the only Bible which men of all faiths are required to accept as the word of God.

Curiously, the majority of those who profess to follow this bible are atheists-- Obviously, atheists who have not read or translated all its passages accurately.

Few men accept this bible, because they are not qualified to read it, and do not want to acquire the requisite qualifications. (E.g: the ability to think, critically.) Nonetheless, this is the only Bible certain to have been written by the Creator of the Universe, and not by men.

It is, of course, the physical universe. My God-concept is derived from the best understanding I, and others, have made of God’s only certifiably true Bible. My God-concept has nothing to do with me or my preferences; in fact, I greatly preferred the more comforting God-concept of my childhood.

Finding a God-concept contrary to my own preferences, and contrary to the beliefs of large numbers of the people who’ve bought into other people’s beliefs was neither fun nor easy. I do not take seriously, comments from people who’ve simply adopted the beliefs they were taught.

But I do take seriously the idea that the Creator might occasionally drop some army “volunteer” onto planet earth to attempt to get a few rudimentary teachings into whatever passes for human minds. Jesus Christ might be one. He actually wrote some material especially for you, in Matthew’s “Parable of the Talents.” You may not have recognized it, figuring that you were the 5 talent servant, or at worst the 2-talent guy. Read about the 1-talent servant, and his fate, for your words mirror his behavior.
 
My favorite God-proof is Plantinga’s:

It says a lot about the general usefulness of such proofs.
All this stuff begins with assumptions which are guaranteed to promote the desired outcome of the argument.

Defining maximum greatness as omnipotence and omniscience is like defining the greatest politician as the one with the biggest muscles or the highest I.Q. Not relevant to the way things work.

Suppose that one is interested in workable ideas, instead of in who’s right or whose God is biggest. Suppose that we (well, me and someone other than you) are actually interested in figuring out what we are, and what our purpose might be. That means getting some handle on what the universe is about, and why it exists. This is an important subject because human beings customarily run their lives according to their best answers to these questions.

It is also a difficult subject which humans have consistently flunked. Proof of this is that while we can send men to the moon and back, the astronauts who walked on the moon disagree with the scientists who sent them, as to what men are.

God, or the Creator of the Universe, does not need to be omnipotent or omniscient. He only needs to be powerful enough (in the strict physics sense of power, E/t) to create the universe, and smart enough to get it more or less correct.

God does not need to be singular. He might be an entity who created matter from energy, then said, “I’m going to rest up. While I nap, some of you guys get together and create galaxies and planets now that I’ve done the hard work.” After napping, God might have awakened and said, “I’d like a cup of coffee. Nice universe, by the way, but what good is it without coffee? Go make some.”

The point is simple, and is not intended to be irreverent.

Your God is the Creator and Superboss of a universe in which the concept of free will is absurd. Mine is the father of a participatory universe. He probably does not have a golden nameplate on His office door, knowing the nitwits He’d have to deal with if disincarnated human souls ever located his whereabouts.
 
Merriam-Webster says “proof” means “the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning”

This definition is full of semantic problems. The five Thomistic proofs assume the self-evident premises of formal logic. The proof from causality seems to be the most useful in the face of modern physics, such as Stephen Hawkings statement, “Before the Big Bang, there was nothing.”
I seriously doubt that Hawking would have made such a statement, which is logically absurd. I’ve actually read some of Hawking’s stuff, and while he’s made a few errors (easy to do, given the subjects he has chosen to take on), he is an extremely intelligent man. The content of your quote could only have come from a nitwit.

Do you have a reference for the statement you attributed to Hawking?
 
Greylorn, I love your post. It makes me almost want to believe that God exists again.

I have to ask, though, that if one strays from traditional theism too far, how meaningful is it to use the word “God” (as opposed to, say, “nature”) to describe this aspect of your belief?
Excellent point. I’ve experimented in other contexts, devising different words for God, but it simply does not work. There are several formal meanings for the word God, but even more informal meanings. I’ve had many conversations with thoughtful believers, even back when I accepted conventional concepts, and found variances among most in terms of their understanding of God.

In Catholic school I was taught that, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Unable to find a hypnotist who I would trust to competently reprogram my brain, it is stuck with that. Unable to disincorporate without leaving a lot of work undone, I’m stuck sharing my brain’s subconscious programming even though I think that I know better.

Then, from a wider perspective, aren’t we all seeking an understanding of the origin and nature of the universe, and of ourselves? Cosmologists freely refer to the big bang and cosmic micropea which preceded it, without any clue as to what these things actually were. Ultimately, everyone who dares to think about the origins of things is stuck in a cul-de-sac. Since we live in a cause-effect universe, something had to cause the effects which we now perceive.

God is the standard religious cause of all effects, and the cosmic micropea or pseudo-singularity serves the same purpose for atheists. They are functionally identical concepts, and equally incorrect. The only significant difference between them is that one implies a conscious, intelligent singularity as cause for the universe, while the other implies a mindless, accidental cause.

Ultimately, don’t these ideas represent the best efforts of human beings to understand our beginnings? If so, in that sense, the stupid singularity is the God for those who want to believe in a mindless, purposeless universe, while Zeus, Yahwe, Jehovah, Jesus, etc. represent God for those who believe in a universe which is the product of conscious intent.

I’m stuck in never-never land. My theories include conscious creation, but I also believe that the entities responsible for creation were the result of an accidental interaction between mindless substances.

Accepting the confusion of a single word applied to multiple concepts (the only such instance in the English language) I’ve chosen the common word “God,” for these reasons.
  • It implies intelligence behind creation.
  • It implies that the source of that intelligence is way bigger and smarter than us.
  • When my body was trashed and my stupid spirit broken, “God” was the name I used for the entity I freely and personally cursed. Eff-U “Nature” would not have cut it.
(I’ve subsequently forgiven God for His abuse after finding it a useful learning experience. That I continue to learn, with the help of some aftermarket parts, suggests that He either forgave or understood my complaints, or even more likely, ignored them altogether.)
  • When I first looked through a large telescope and saw a cluster of stars, and when I watched a child of mine being born, “God” is the name I whispered.
“Gee whiz, Nature,” just would not have cut it for me then, and does not now.
 
But I do take seriously the idea that the Creator might occasionally drop some army “volunteer” onto planet earth to attempt to get a few rudimentary teachings into whatever passes for human minds. Jesus Christ might be one.
Glad you are open to the idea. Try looking into the research done on the Shroud of Turin (I like the pollen on it that only occurs within a 50-mile radius of Jerusalem) and Bethlehem’s Star (Jupiter). You may find enough evidence to convince you that Jesus is “highly likely” to be sent by the Creator. Once you accept that, realize that if the Creator put someone on earth to teach, that it would be foolish to send a liar. Follow it long enough and you’ll make it back to the Catholic Church (which BTW developed the scientific method and laws of evidence). We’ll be waiting for you with open arms to welcome you home.
 
greylorn, I am beginning to become a bit curious as to your academic credentials. You seem to revel in demeaning those with whom you don’t see eye-to-eye using playground-type comebacks such as “simple faith…simple people,” and nitwits, etc., etc., etc. I learned at a very early age, say over 60 years ago, that people who feel psychologically insecure tend to abash others in order to make themselves feel more important. Then, your particularly stunning remark concerning Hawkings floored me when you contended “he’s made a few errors”!!! Wow! Hey, greylorn, could you be more specific? What errors are you talking about? Details please. After you’ve Goggled “Hawkings” and read about him on Wikipedia, then I’d invite you to offer to all of us “simple people” your magnificent insight into the “errors” you have identified. I’ve been around the block a few times in my life and found that truly gifted academicians have one thing, generally, in common—humility. That’s why I have my doubts about you my friend. Killing with kindness is a specialty few people know how to exercise.
 
greylorn
Some men have been so arrogant as to claim that their preferred selections of things written by men, were actually inspired by God. (But not the other folks’ preferred selections.)
But I do take seriously the idea that the Creator might occasionally drop some army “volunteer” onto planet earth to attempt to get a few rudimentary teachings into whatever passes for human minds.
How crass. When unable to comprehend simply evade, sneer and jeer.
We have seen why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else – because of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Post #212).
Really? Well, yes, the same Church which gave us the history of Christ which includes His Resurrection with the eyewitness accounts of those who willingly died to witness to that fact. Public miracles are observed by atheists – post #249. Merely the same Church which gave us all we know about God, as His Word, because the God-Man founded Her to lead us to Him.
We really don’t need a pseudo-messiah to scramble minds when we have the immense stature of Christ’s Church guiding us with Fides et Ratio.
 
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 127

Greylorn, do you think Hawking is a nitwit? 😃
 
Another of my favorite proofs for the Heavenly Father (God) is His son come in the flesh, Jesus the Christ. I offer Jesus Christ as a proof, because dead men don’t answer prayers.
 
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 127

Greylorn, do you think Hawking is a nitwit? 😃
Of all the comments I’ve dealt with on CAF, this one from you sets a record for ignorance and irrelevancy.

Since I don’t have a nice coffee table (anyone coming by to visit me will want to drink something at the other end of the beverage spectrum) I actually had to read my copy of BHT. Can’t say that I recall this quote. That reading was 15-odd years back. Hawking is a genius. Why would you imagine that I’d put him in the same category as someone who’d ask such a dimwitted question, with all its smarmy implications?

Out of what corner of the woodwork did you crawl?
 
How crass. When unable to comprehend simply evade, sneer and jeer.
We have seen why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else – because of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Post #212).
Really? Well, yes, the same Church which gave us the history of Christ which includes His Resurrection with the eyewitness accounts of those who willingly died to witness to that fact. Public miracles are observed by atheists – post #249. Merely the same Church which gave us all we know about God, as His Word, because the God-Man founded Her to lead us to Him.
We really don’t need a pseudo-messiah to scramble minds when we have the immense stature of Christ’s Church guiding us with Fides et Ratio.
You don’t need to worry overmuch about getting your, ah, mind, scrambled. You’ll have better luck with eggs. Have someone else cook them for you while you read some books about Galileo Galileo and Giordano Bruno and their relationships with the Church.
 
Uuugh, I’m so sick of the Galileo gripe. It’s propaganda dribble, and anyone who still pulls the Galileo card needs to read actual history.
 
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 127

Greylorn, do you think Hawking is a nitwit? 😃
2 things:

One, I think that quote may be slightly out of context, since further on (pg 136) Hawking says this:

“The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: ‘The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”

and then on pg 140:

“But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

It seems like he was expounding on several different theories and how each differently impacted how the role of God might be viewed.

Two, I think greylorn’s nitwit comment was meant for another poster, not for Hawking. The poster had implied that Hawking somehow backed up one of the Thomistic proofs for God’s existence, which does seem a bit of a stretch.

Another interesting Hawking quote is this : "One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics. [Stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes] -in this he sounds curiously like greylorn…
 
greylorn, I am beginning to become a bit curious as to your academic credentials. You seem to revel in demeaning those with whom you don’t see eye-to-eye using playground-type comebacks such as “simple faith…simple people,” and nitwits, etc., etc., etc. I learned at a very early age, say over 60 years ago, that people who feel psychologically insecure tend to abash others in order to make themselves feel more important. Then, your particularly stunning remark concerning Hawkings floored me when you contended “he’s made a few errors”!!! Wow! Hey, greylorn, could you be more specific? What errors are you talking about? Details please. After you’ve Goggled “Hawkings” and read about him on Wikipedia, then I’d invite you to offer to all of us “simple people” your magnificent insight into the “errors” you have identified. I’ve been around the block a few times in my life and found that truly gifted academicians have one thing, generally, in common—humility. That’s why I have my doubts about you my friend. Killing with kindness is a specialty few people know how to exercise.
A few tips:

Learn paragraphing.

Don’t offer a general rant of mindless insults to someone whose ideas you’ve not studied, then call him “friend.” My friends are carefully selected, for better manners.

You go ahead and “google” Stephen Hawking a few more times. Maybe you’ll at least learn to spell his surname properly. Even better, read his books, as I and others have done.

I guess that the willingness to actually read source material on important subjects would not count as credentials for a certified googler, would it?

Hawking’s errors are simple. He neglected to quantize time, and has chosen to believe in a physical singularity. An even more profound error: Hawking, like most people in his field, attempts to explain the origin of the universe without cause.

I appreciate anyone who increases my level of understanding, so thank you for helping to enhance my understanding of the term, “nitwit.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top